82,900
edits
Loyalty discount: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|hr|{{image|Loyalty Discount|png|}}}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈlɔɪəlti ˈdɪskaʊnt |n|}}The great falsification of the [[human resources]] dogma. | {{a|hr|{{image|Loyalty Discount|png|}}}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈlɔɪəlti ˈdɪskaʊnt |n|}}The great falsification of the [[human resources]] dogma. | ||
For the strictures of salary bands, [[forced ranking]], gerrymandered [[performance appraisal]] system — all the great apocrypha of the [[HR]] canon — mean that through time | For the strictures of salary bands, [[forced ranking]], gerrymandered [[performance appraisal]] system — all the great apocrypha of the [[HR]] canon — mean that through time, a given employee’s [[compensation|pay]] will decouple from the value she offers her firm.<ref>As we have [[Cost-value threshold|remarked elsewhere]], it is more or less axiomatic that all employees contribute ''some'' positive value to their organisation: you would have to be pathologically antisocial not to. The exception that proves this rule is the unnamed [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/15-years-skipping-work/ Italian hospital worker who bunked off for fifteen years].</ref> | ||
That is, those who remain loyal to the firm are progressively ''penalised'' over time. If they get pay rises at all, they are anaemic. Accompanying protests of iniquity are shrugged off with the two-way optionality that HR managers know they are long. | |||
“As part of infrastructure, you | “As part of infrastructure, you don’t share in the ''upside'', but you’re protected in a down year” [[Human resources|HR]] will say, in a good year. | ||
In a bad one, they will tell you, “we’ve managed to minimise the [[RIF]], but we’re still under | In a bad one, they will tell you, “we’ve managed to minimise the [[RIF]], but we’re still under a 15% [[cost challenge]], so — just to manage your expectations, you’ll do well to be flat,” as if you are supposed to be grateful. | ||
Of course ''they'' won’t tell you that. They will delegate that magnificent news to your [[line manager]], with the instruction: “do not blame HR for this bad news: you must [[Own the decision|own the compensation decision]].” | |||
The net upshot, per worker, is usually stagnation; in real | === Whither performance appraisal? === | ||
Never mind the weeks you must spend each autumn mired in [[performance appraisal]]s, when it comes to the annual pay review, talk of your performance is, mysteriously, absent. | |||
Suddenly, what you personally ''did'' to contribute to the bottom line seems not to matter: it’s all about the big numbers, lumbering titans clashing way above your head. You are but a cork, bobbing upon an angry sea. | |||
The net upshot, per worker, is usually stagnation; in real, inflation-adjusted terms they may wind up going backwards, over long periods. | |||
But over those periods, good employees get ''better''. They learn things, they gain experience. They build networks. They bat themselves in. They may see less able, less loyal coworkers forge ahead with lateral moves. | But over those periods, good employees get ''better''. They learn things, they gain experience. They build networks. They bat themselves in. They may see less able, less loyal coworkers forge ahead with lateral moves. | ||
Yes, | |||
By the way, none of this is to defend much less justify in absolute terms city pay which, however you look at it, is absurd. Only its allocation. | By the way, none of this is to defend much less justify in absolute terms city pay which, however you look at it, is absurd. Only its allocation. | ||