Lateral quitter: Difference between revisions

Lateral quitter (view source)

Revision as of 08:18, 21 November 2022

1,853 bytes added , 21 November 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 God speed all our friends in operation roles at DogeCoin and [[Lexrifyly]] right now, by the way: hope it is fun while it lasts.
 ===Lateral quitters are good staff===
-Anyway. Leaving aside these anomalous situations, lateral leavers will be your ''better'' employees. Ones that provide more value than they cost. Being smart, they are likely to know they are being undervalued and, being proactive, energetic people, do something about it. By contrast, those who provide less value than they are worth are unlikely to do anything about it — especially if they are smart — and even the dumb ones who try to do something about it won’t be able to.
+Anyway. Leaving aside these anomalous situations, lateral leavers will tend to be your ''better'' employees. Ones that provide more value than they cost. Being smart, they are likely to know they are being undervalued and, being proactive, energetic people, do something about it. By contrast, those who provide less value than they are worth are unlikely to do anything about it — especially if they are smart — and even the dumb ones who try to do something about it won’t be able to.
+There is a negative feedback loop here, therefore: say all people you hire have an equal chance of working out well — competence is evenly distributed — and those who work out ''better'' than expected are progressively more likely to quit while those who disappoint are progressively likely to stay. The competency of the workforce will quickly skew mediocre.
+Those who leave will be replaced — at necessarily greater cost, ''[[ceteris paribus]]'', because the one and only time you are obliged to [[mark to market]] is when you hire— by a person having , QED, no institutional knowledge, no network, and, even so, a no-better-than-even chance of working out well.
+===The loyalty discount===
+“But excellent employees will be rewarded with better pay and progression” is an objection only offered by someone who has not heard of the [[loyalty discount]]. [[HR]] will have forged ironclad compensation bands, based not in any assessment of the quality of the workforce (because how could HR, of all functions, possibly know?) but by some opaque benchmarking operation carried out by consultants “gathering data” from their their peers. HR’s main concern — beyond arbitrary [[Simpson paradox]]ical concerns with abstract measures of global fairness — gender pay, for example — will be '' not setting a precedent ''. Your manager will shake his head mournfully and say, “my hands are tied.”
+Notice another curious negative feedback loop caused by HR policy. Lets say firms generally run a benign affirmative action policy. This means, all other things being equal, they will hire minority employees first, and clear out majority employees first in a [[RIF]]. Since you tend to laterally hire one at a time, but fire in large groups, and since minority employees are by definition, a minority, this has a powerful bias.