Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{a|hr|{{image|Loyalty Discount|png|}}}} | | {{a|hr|{{image|Loyalty Discount|png|}}}}{{dpn|/ˈlɔɪəlti ˈdɪskaʊnt/ |n|}}{{Quote|“Our people are our most valuable asset.” |
| | — Every [[human resources]] department ever.}}For the miscellany of the [[HR]] military-industrial complex — salary bands, [[forced ranking]], gerrymandered [[performance appraisal]] system — all militate ''against'' the idea that staff are are a precious resource. These are lined up to ensure that, through time, an employee’s [[Compensation|pay]] will decouple from, and then trail, the value she offers her firm. |
|
| |
|
| {{Quote|“Our people are our most valuable asset.”
| | That is, loyalty to the firm is progressively ''penalised''. If they get pay rises at all, they are anaemic. Accompanying protests of iniquity are shrugged off with the two-way optionality that HR managers know they are long. |
| :— Every [[human resources]] department ever, stating a truth it does not believe, through gritted teeth.}}
| |
| {{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈlɔɪəlti ˈdɪskaʊnt |n|}}The great falsification of the [[human resources]] dogma.
| |
| | |
| For the miscellany of the [[HR]] military-industrial complex — salary bands, [[forced ranking]], gerrymandered [[performance appraisal]] system — all militate against the idea that current staff are valuable.
| |
| | |
| All the great apocrypha of the [[HR]] canon are lined up to ensure that, through time, an employee’s [[compensation|pay]] will decouple from, and then trail, the value she offers her firm.<ref>As we have [[Cost-value threshold|remarked elsewhere]], it is more or less axiomatic that all employees contribute ''some'' positive value to their organisation: you would have to be pathologically antisocial not to. The exception that proves this rule is the unnamed [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/15-years-skipping-work/ Italian hospital worker who bunked off for fifteen years].</ref>
| |
| | |
| That is, loyalty to the firm is progressively ''penalised''. If they get pay rises at all, they are anaemic. Accompanying protests of iniquity are shrugged off with the two-way optionality that HR managers know they are long. | |
|
| |
|
| “As part of infrastructure, you don’t share in the ''upside'', but you’re protected in a down year” [[Human resources|HR]] will say, in a good year. | | “As part of infrastructure, you don’t share in the ''upside'', but you’re protected in a down year” [[Human resources|HR]] will say, in a good year. |
|
| |
|
| In a bad one, they will tell you, “we’ve managed to minimise the [[RIF]], but we’re still under a 15% [[cost challenge]], so — just to manage your expectations, you’ll do well to be flat,” as if you are supposed to be grateful. | | In a bad one, they will tell you, “we’ve managed to minimise the [[RIF]], but we’re still under a 15% [[cost challenge]], so — just to manage your expectations, you’ll do well to be flat”. |
| | |
| Of course ''they'' won’t tell you that. They will delegate that magnificent news to your [[line manager]], with the instruction: “do not blame HR for this bad news: you must [[Own the decision|own the compensation decision]].”
| |
| | |
| === Whither performance appraisal? ===
| |
| Never mind the weeks you must spend each autumn mired in [[performance appraisal]]s, when it comes to the annual pay review, talk of your performance is, mysteriously, absent.
| |
| | |
| Suddenly, what you personally ''did'' to contribute to the bottom line seems not to matter: it’s all about the big numbers, lumbering titans clashing way above your head. You are but a cork, bobbing upon an angry sea.
| |
| | |
| The net upshot, per worker, is usually stagnation; in real, inflation-adjusted terms they may wind up going backwards, over long periods.
| |
| | |
| But over those periods, good employees get ''better''. They learn things, they gain experience. They build networks. They bat themselves in. They may see less able, less loyal coworkers forge ahead with lateral moves.
| |
| | |
| ===Tiny violins?===
| |
| Now, none of this is to defend, much less justify, city pay levels which, however you look at them, are absurd.
| |
| | |
| So should we shed tears about relative disfavour among a group as systematically overcompensated as city drones? We should not. And we do not. But we should understand the [[systemantic]] forces at play.
| |
| | |
| Fundamentally, the deployment of capital to investment — this is the sun total of what the financial services machine, at its most basic level, does — is a very risky, important and therefore valuable thing. Historically, markets that have most effectively allocated capital have done best. It is painful to concede but hard to deny: for at least a century, our American friends have been the best.
| |
|
| |
|
| In any case those who are good at it stand to make a lot of money. This will not change. Effective capital allocation is worth paying for.
| | Now none of this is to defend, much less justify, city pay levels. Should we shed tears about relative disfavour among a group as systematically overcompensated as city drones? We should not. And we do not. But still, we should understand the [[systemantic]] forces at play. |
|
| |
|
| The [[JC’]]s operating premise is that those who do get to do it — and the [[agency problem|remoras, nits and flukeworms]] who accompany them as they go — do ''not'' do nearly as good a job of it as they should. Our [[roll of honour]] refers.
| | Fundamentally, the allocation of financial capital — which is the sum total of what the financial services machine, at its most basic level, does — is a risky, important and therefore valuable thing. Markets that most effectively allocate capital do best. In any case, those who are good at it stand to make a lot of money. This will not change. Effective capital allocation is worth paying for. |
|
| |
|
| If the system were configured systema(n)tically to reward excellence, not mediocrity, perhaps fewer shitstorms would happen. So — with the caveat that, sure, everyone gets paid too much — we ask here a different question: how do we allocate pay more effectively. This is, after all, what the industry is meant to be best at
| | The [[JC’|JC’s]] operating premise is that those who do get to do it do ''not'' do nearly as good a job of it as they should. Our [[roll of honour]] refers. |
|
| |
|
| | If the system rewarded excellence, not mediocrity, perhaps fewer shitstorms would happen. So — with the caveat that, sure, everyone gets paid too much — we ask here a different question: how do we allocate pay more effectively? Resource allocation is, after all, what the industry is meant to be best at. |
| ===Mediocrity drift=== | | ===Mediocrity drift=== |
|
| |
|
| Line 54: |
Line 30: |
|
| |
|
| {{sa}} | | {{sa}} |
| | *[[Employment derivatives]] |
| *[[Ergodicity]] | | *[[Ergodicity]] |
| *[[Lateral hire]] | | *[[Lateral hire]] |