82,028
edits
Lateral quitter: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
But if all you have left are the plodders, do not expect them to take up the slack. You will need a replacement, and — unlike the person who just departed — you must per her her actual value. At this point you have categorically worsened your position. | But if all you have left are the plodders, do not expect them to take up the slack. You will need a replacement, and — unlike the person who just departed — you must per her her actual value. At this point you have categorically worsened your position. | ||
===Quid pro quo=== | |||
The good burghers of HR are no more inquisitive about the ''underperformers''. Generally they are allowed to lie, languishing in a pool of non-advancement, continuing to draw a poor salary — still more than they are worth — until one of the firm’s irregular mass [[RIF|culls]], when many laggards and quite a few good ’uns are dispensed with at once, more or less indiscriminately. | |||
[[Redundancy round]]s are a lazy, cowardly way of getting rid of staff and you should have actively managed up or out. It means you can dress up performance management as business resource reallocation — something it really isn’t. | |||
We need to get over the stigma of dismissal. Here, our American friends have the right idea: employment at will. Well-meant formalistic barriers to removing staff have the unintended consequence of increasing barriers to ''hiring'' staff, since it is that much harder to reverse a duff hiring decision. | |||
It is mad really: finance professionals are not pit-workers. They have market power and a liberal education: they don’t need the protection of procedural fairness. They can erect personal defences to redundancy as they go: their contribution, their Institutional knowledge and lose.rich informal networks. No firm in its right mind will fire an outperformer: those in their wrong minds lose out. This applies, too, to functional diversity. Smart firms will ensure they have it. Firms that doing will go out of business. Q.E.D. | |||
===Look after what you have=== | ===Look after what you have=== | ||
How to stop this? Well, for one thing, focus your attention on your employees who deserve it: the ''good performers''. | How to stop this? Well, for one thing, focus your attention on your employees who deserve it: the ''good performers''. | ||