83,249
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
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.” | 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. 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. | 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. “[[Middle management]]” is a contradiction in terms, after all.</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. | ||
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 | And indeed, the operating theory for a [[reduction in force]] — fully honoured in the breach though it is — is that those put “[[At risk of redundancy|at risk]]” are functionally surplus to requirements and should not replaced. This is of course fatuous: most [[RIF]]s are a cheap way of trimming poor performers. | ||
But it is a canny organisation indeed that keeps all its stars and only loses donkeys. If all you have left are work-shy plodders, do not expect them to take up the slack. You will need to back-fill departees, and — unlike those departing — you must pay the going rate. | |||
At this point you have categorically ''worsened'' your position. | |||
So herewith our premise. It may seem a bit Hobbesian. But firms should be more active in targeted termination. It is for the better of everyone. | |||
===Quid pro quo=== | ===Quid pro quo=== | ||
The good burghers of [[HR]] are scarcely more inquisitive about ''underperformers'' than they are about [[lateral quitter]]s. | The good burghers of [[HR]] are scarcely more inquisitive about ''underperformers'' than they are about [[lateral quitter]]s. In recent times, egged on by loopy notions of [[stakeholder capitalism|a higher purpose]] they have become distracted by theoretical questions of social justice, and lost focus on their one job: making sure the staff are cutting mustard. | ||
Generally, clods are allowed to lie fallow for unfeasibly long periods, languishing in a pool of non-advancement, continuing to draw a underwhelming salaries — in that they are more than they are worth — until finally tilled at one of the firm’s irregular mass [[RIF|culls]]. Here many laggards and no small number of good ’uns, are dispensed with at once, more or less indiscriminately. | Generally, clods are allowed to lie fallow for unfeasibly long periods, languishing in a pool of non-advancement, continuing to draw a underwhelming salaries — in that they are more than they are worth — until finally tilled at one of the firm’s irregular mass [[RIF|culls]]. Here many laggards and no small number of good ’uns, are dispensed with at once, more or less indiscriminately. |