Lateral quitter: Difference between revisions

Lateral quitter (view source)

Revision as of 19:40, 21 November 2022

1,273 bytes added , 21 November 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,892

edits

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 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.”
 ===Affirmative action===
-Notice another curious, unintended, negative feedback loop. Let’s say firms generally run a benign affirmative action policy. This means, all other things being equal, they will hire minority employees first, and clear out majority employees first in a [[RIF]].
+Notice another curious, unintended, negative feedback loop. Let’s say firms generally run a benign affirmative action policy, to increase representation. This means, when presented with equivalent candidates, it will prioritise “minority” candidates when laterally hiring, and “majority” employees when selecting candidates for a [[RIF]].
-Since you tend to laterally hire one at a time, but let employees go in large groups, and since minority employees are, by definition, a minority, this may have a powerful bias.
+Since one tends to laterally hire one at a time, but let employees go in groups, and since minority employees are, by definition, a minority, this creates an odd system effect.
-Predicated on three assumptions: that lateral quitters are generally good employees, redundancy candidates generally bad ones, and the individual abilities of all personnel, relative to their cost, are evenly distributed regardless of their majority/minority status. If so your “good section” will progressively become majority-dominated — they are not being bid away — and your “bad section” progressively minority dominated.
+This effect is predicated on three assumptions:
+*That, generally, lateral quitters are ''relatively'' good employees,
+*That [[RIF]] candidates generally aren’t,
+*That abilities of all personnel, ''relative to their cost'', are evenly distributed. Taken as a group, majority and the minority are about as good as each other; that is to say minority categorisation has no bearing on performance.
-How your incoming lateral hires perform will remain to be seen, but since performance is relative to cost, and QED they are Your arriving at a higher cost than the ones you are replacing, they start not as outlier good staff, but average ones.
+If so, then running our affirmative action system has an alarming and counterintuitive effect on the remaining population. On ''average'', the majority will ''increase'' in relative value, while minority will ''decrease'' in relative value,  ''even though no individual performance changes at all''.
+On second glance you can see why this should be so. The process systematically weeds out bad majority employees and good majority ones. The “good section” will progressively become majority-dominated — they are not being bid away as frequently — and the “below par” section becomes progressively minority dominated.
+Two observations: here is [[systemantics]] in its raw natural state; and notice how pernicious the idea of the ''average'' is here. On average, the minority is paid progressively less. It looks like minority employees are being discriminated against on pay, but in fact they are being ''favoured for poor performance''.
+How your incoming lateral hires perform will remain to be seen, but remember performance is measured relative to cost, and since by leaving they have marked themselves to market, they leave their old quincunx at the top and enter their new quincunx at the mean Your arriving at a higher cost than the ones you are replacing, they start not as outlier good staff, but average ones.
 ===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]]''.