Natural attrition: 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 1: Line 1:
{{a|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈnæʧrəl əˈtrɪʃ(ə)n|n|}}
{{a|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈnæʧrəl əˈtrɪʃ(ə)n|n|}}


The dismal [[human resources]] practice of neglecting to manage out poor employees, and instead waiting for [[lateral quitter|good ones leave by their own initiative]], and then not replacing them, as a means to managing [[headcount]].
The dismal [[human resources]] practice of neglecting to manage out poor employees, and instead waiting for [[lateral quitter|good ones leave by their own initiative]], and then not replacing them, as a means to [[RIF|managing headcount]].


For sensitive types who don’t like workplace conflict, a smashing idea. For shareholders, a terrible one, ensuring as it does the inevitable [[mediocrity drift|drift to mediocrity]] among the [[stewards of your capital]].
For sensitive types in HR who don’t like workplace conflict, or having do do unpleasant things, a smashing idea. For [[shareholder]]s, a terrible one, ensuring as it does the inevitable [[mediocrity drift|drift to mediocrity]] among the [[stewards of your capital]].


A sensible [[human resources]] department — and here we are bound to say we are unpersuaded such a thing exists — would pursue the opposite strategy, devoting time effort and, if need be, money, talking good employees ''out'' of leaving and, and funding any such expenditure by culling the poor ones.
A sensible [[human resources]] department — and here we are bound to say we are unpersuaded such a thing exists — would pursue the opposite strategy, devoting time effort and, if need be, money, talking good employees ''out'' of leaving and, and funding any such expenditure by culling the poor ones.

Navigation menu