82,891
edits
Lateral quitter: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Anyway. Leaving aside these anomalous situations, lateral leavers will tend to be your ''better'' employees. Ones that provide more value than they cost. Being smart, they are likely to know they are being undervalued and, being proactive, energetic people, do something about it. By contrast, those who provide less value than they are worth are unlikely to do anything about it — especially if they are smart — and even the dumb ones who try to do something about it won’t be able to. | Anyway. Leaving aside these anomalous situations, lateral leavers will tend to be your ''better'' employees. Ones that provide more value than they cost. Being smart, they are likely to know they are being undervalued and, being proactive, energetic people, do something about it. By contrast, those who provide less value than they are worth are unlikely to do anything about it — especially if they are smart — and even the dumb ones who try to do something about it won’t be able to. | ||
There is a negative feedback loop here, therefore: say all people you hire have an equal chance of working out well — competence is evenly distributed — and those who work out ''better'' than expected are progressively more likely to quit while those who disappoint are progressively likely to stay. The competency of the workforce will quickly skew mediocre. | There is a negative feedback loop here, therefore: say all people you hire have an equal chance of working out well — competence is evenly distributed — and those who work out ''better'' than expected are progressively more likely to quit while those who disappoint are progressively likely to stay. The competency of the workforce will quickly skew ''mediocre''. We call this “[[mediocrity drift]]”. | ||
Those who leave will be replaced — at necessarily greater cost, ''[[ceteris paribus]]'', because the one and only time you are obliged to [[mark to market]] is when you hire— by a person having , QED, no institutional knowledge, no network, and, even so, a no-better-than-even chance of working out well. | Those who leave will be replaced — at necessarily greater cost, ''[[ceteris paribus]]'', because the one and only time you are obliged to [[mark to market]] is when you hire— by a person having , QED, no institutional knowledge, no network, and, even so, a no-better-than-even chance of working out well. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
Once they have successfully “benchmarked” their salary bands against the market, HR’s main concern will be ''not setting a precedent''. Your manager will shake his head mournfully and say, “my hands are tied.” | Once they have successfully “benchmarked” their salary bands against the market, HR’s main concern will be ''not setting a precedent''. Your manager will shake his head mournfully and say, “my hands are tied.” | ||
===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''. | |||
Try to ''stop'' them leaving. | |||
If [[HR]] were worth the commodious space it occupied, it would ask who these lateral quitters are, and ''why'', in general terms, they are walking away. On the other hand, it takes no towering intellectual insight to figure it out. In broad strokes it boils down to: ''money'', ''progression'', and ''[[tedium|quality of work]]''. | If [[HR]] were worth the commodious space it occupied, it would ask who these lateral quitters are, and ''why'', in general terms, they are walking away. On the other hand, it takes no towering intellectual insight to figure it out. In broad strokes it boils down to: ''money'', ''progression'', and ''[[tedium|quality of work]]''. | ||
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. | 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. | ||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*[[Legibility]] | *[[Legibility]] | ||
*[[mediocrity drift]] | |||
*[[Loyalty discount]] | |||