Lateral quitter: Difference between revisions

As a matter of logic, lateral quitters will tend to be ''good'' employees that you didn’t want to leave. [[Line manager]]s have a remarkable facility, after the fact, for persuading their superiors, that this is not the case, but it stands to reason: if people leave who you wanted to leave anyway, you should have ''made'' them leave. Employment should not, however much human resources dogma implies otherwise, be a hostage situation. Either way.

Now, it is true: there ''is'' a sort of “[[bid/ask spread]]” between staff you genuinely value and those you would be just as happy never to see again. This we call the “[[competence phase transition]]”. It is a sort of purgatorial state, occupied by earnest plodders who don’t really earn their keep but do no real harm, such that you can’t ''quite'' summon the bureaucratic energy to proactively whack them, but few will shed crocodile tears if they did decide to push off. It is a remarkably stable state: [[Weak gazelle|staff of such a tepid bearing]] can comfortably inhabit this zone for decades. Some do, every now and then, have a rush of blood to the head and throw in the towel, often  at times of mass exuberance: you know, dotcom booms, [[Cryptobabble|crypto mania]], that kind of thing, when in a fit of irrational (and uncharacteristic) exuberance, these people join fly-by-night stablecoin start-ups and legaltech ventures. They are not generally heard of again until they show up in the fossil record as evidence of one of these mass extinctions that the financial service industry undergoes every decade or so.  

God speed all our friends in operation roles at Coinbase and [[Lexrifyly]] right now, by the way: hope it is fun while it lasts.

Another way of looking at that continuum is this: you pay poor employees more than they are worth to you, and good employees ,''less'' than than they are worth.