83,050
edits
Employment derivatives: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
Though HR departments would [[Force-ranking|force-rank]] staff to a curve graded against an internal 5-point scoring metric employee “alpha” could still be mispriced especially over time, as a result of [[mediocrity drift]]. Barkley adjusted his model for mediocrity “frown” — he called this “medioxity” — but the formal grade boundaries and other arbitrary “success criteria” of the HR model still still meant interdepartmental secondments were beset by diversity arbitrage and [[Cheapest to deliver|cheapest-to-deliver]] scandals, especially over quarter-end. | Though HR departments would [[Force-ranking|force-rank]] staff to a curve graded against an internal 5-point scoring metric employee “alpha” could still be mispriced especially over time, as a result of [[mediocrity drift]]. Barkley adjusted his model for mediocrity “frown” — he called this “medioxity” — but the formal grade boundaries and other arbitrary “success criteria” of the HR model still still meant interdepartmental secondments were beset by diversity arbitrage and [[Cheapest to deliver|cheapest-to-deliver]] scandals, especially over quarter-end. | ||
On the other hand [[Reduction in force|reductions in force]] could be handled quantitatively by reference to the PIBOR forward curve rather than by business need or individual performance. This was not the last unintended consequence of the financialisation of the employment relationship. | On the other hand [[Reduction in force|reductions in force]] could be handled quantitatively by reference to the PIBOR forward curve rather than by business need or individual performance. This was not the last unintended consequence of the [[financialisation]] of the employment relationship. | ||
====Expansion==== | ====Expansion==== | ||