82,900
edits
Lateral quitter: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
God speed all our friends in operation roles at DogeCoin and [[Lexrifyly]] right now, by the way: hope it is fun while it lasts. | 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=== | ===Lateral quitters are ''good'' staff, QED=== | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
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. | 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=== | ===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 | “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 on 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 industry peers. Where exactly this data comes from, no-one will know. Assuming the consultants don’t just make it up out of whole cloth, assume it ''will be volunteered by other HR departments''. Now think for a moment, about interests here. If you were the highest payer on the street — therefore having a natural advantage over your peers in the lateral hire market — wouldn’t you want to keep ''quiet'' about that? Wouldn’t you be [[inclined to]] undercook the data you submitted to benchmark surveys? | ||
===Affirmative action | |||
But ''come on'' JC: surely, regulated institutions wouldn’t knowingly [[London Inter Bank Offered Rate|skew important market data to suit their own financial interests]], would they? | |||
Once they have successfully “benchmarked” their salary bands against the market, HR’s main concern will be ''not setting a precedent''. Your manager will shake his head mournfully and say, “my hands are tied.” | |||
===Affirmative action=== | |||
Notice another curious, unintended, negative feedback loop. Let’s 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]]. | Notice another curious, unintended, negative feedback loop. Let’s 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]]. | ||