Extreme prejudice: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 7: Line 7:
We have canvassed the odd phenomenon of [[mediocrity drift]] whereby the feedback loops of lateral resignation and [[reduction in force]] induce an odd system effect whereby the parts of your workforce you are most anxious to retain progressively deteriorates in ''quality'', if not numbers.
We have canvassed the odd phenomenon of [[mediocrity drift]] whereby the feedback loops of lateral resignation and [[reduction in force]] induce an odd system effect whereby the parts of your workforce you are most anxious to retain progressively deteriorates in ''quality'', if not numbers.


Employment is not, naturally an equilibrium state.<ref>And nor should it be, though it is made (regrettably) more stable by labour laws.</ref> There is a sweet spot when master and servant both feel they are getting a reasonable return for their investment, but keeping to that sweet spot requires constant attention, the way navigating along a straight road still requires steering. In a perfect world one would do this by trimming and goosing salary expectations, but lord only knows it is not a perfect world.
Employment is not, naturally an equilibrium state.<ref>And nor should it be, though it is made (regrettably) more stable by labour laws.</ref> There is a sweet spot when master and servant both feel they are getting a reasonable return for their investment, but keeping to that sweet spot requires constant attention, the way navigating along a straight road still requires steering. In a perfect world one would do this by trimming and goosing salary expectations as circumstances change, but lord only knows it is not a perfect world.


Hence these system effects.
Hence these system effects.


Now you might be [[inclined]] to look at this and think, “well, this is a fine state of affairs: by pruning the truly dismal in periodic job lots and letting the jumped-up and flighty go, we are nicely containing our costs within a tight range.”  
Now you might be [[inclined]] to look at this and think, “well, still, this is a fine state of affairs: by pruning the truly dismal in job lots and letting the jumped-up and flighty go one at a time, we are nicely containing our costs within a tight range.”  


This would be true were you not obliged to replace those who leave.  
This would be true were you not obliged to replace those who leave. In an organisation big enough to have its own [[human resources]] department,<ref>We have a theory that the point at which a firm acquires its own dedicated [[HR]] function is the point at which it is ''too'' big, whereupon it begins its sure descent into sclerotic middle age.</ref> [[Parkinson’s law]] obtains: you probably ''don’t'' need to replace leavers — or at least ''wouldn’t'', if you could hang on to those few staff who actually got things done.  


The operating theory — honoured in the breach — is that [[RIF]] candidates are indeed surplus to requirements and are not replaced. [[Lateral quitter]]s less so but, in an organisation big enough to have its own [[human resources]] department,<ref>We have a theory that the point at which a firm acquires it's own a dedicated [[HR]] function is the tipping point at which it  begins its sure descent into sclerotic middle age.</ref> you probably ''don’t'' need to replace leavers — or at least ''wouldn’t'', if you could hang on to those staff who actually got things done, while only getting rid of grifters. [[Parkinson’s law]] obtains.  All big organisations have more middle management staff than they need.
And indeed, the operating theory for a reduction in force — honoured in the breach though it is — is that those put “[[At risk of redundancy|at risk]]are indeed surplus to requirements and should not replaced. This is of course fatuous: most [[RIF]]s are a cheap way of trimming poor performers.
 
 
[[Lateral quitter]]s less so but,  All big organisations have more middle management staff than they need.


“Middle management” is a contradiction in terms, after all.
“Middle management” is a contradiction in terms, after all.
Line 46: Line 49:
End of day, professional services employers should not have to be a privatised welfare system for their staff. The defence against [[mediocrity drift]] is to quickly deal with laggers.  
End of day, professional services employers should not have to be a privatised welfare system for their staff. The defence against [[mediocrity drift]] is to quickly deal with laggers.  


A byThe first tool here is discretionary bonus. With this you can bring down cost and push the laggard into the safe zone. If you are flatlining on doughnuts, and you can’t figure out a way of redeploying said laggard, then have the conversation. Be clear, have it early.
The first tool here is discretionary bonus. With this you can bring down cost and push the laggard into the safe zone. If you are flatlining on doughnuts, and you can’t figure out a way of redeploying said laggard, then have the conversation. Be clear, have it early.
===Look after what you have===
===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''.  
How to stop this? Well, for one thing, focus your attention on your employees who deserve it: the ''good performers''.  

Navigation menu