82,891
edits
Reduction in force: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Usually, therefore, it is a means of taking out a swathe of mid-ranking [[subject matter experts]]. We of the [[Morlock|guild of mid-ranking subject matter experts]] find this fact rather ''chafing'', to say the least. | Usually, therefore, it is a means of taking out a swathe of mid-ranking [[subject matter experts]]. We of the [[Morlock|guild of mid-ranking subject matter experts]] find this fact rather ''chafing'', to say the least. | ||
We have a view that an organisation which needs a periodic [[reduction in force]] | We have a view that an organisation which needs a periodic [[reduction in force]] is not properly managing its human resources month-by-month. | ||
the JC has a view that [[system redundancy|systemic redundancy]] in a [[complex]] organisation is, at some level, quite a good thing; a [[reduction in force]] is an ''elimination'' of redundancy, and is therefore more fraught than it should be. Elimination of ''superfluous'' redundancy is one thing, but over what period should we measure superfluity? If [[Credit Suisse]] is any guide, it is [[Archegos|something like ''250 years'']]. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[System redundancy]] | |||
*[[Lateral quitter]] | *[[Lateral quitter]] | ||
*[[Mediocrity drift]] | *[[Mediocrity drift]] | ||