Lateral quitter: Difference between revisions

“But the best staff will be rewarded with better pay and progression” will come the objection and while it may be true on its own relative terms — you would need density of a planetary scale not to systematically prefer good performers over bad ones, though this won’t stop HR trying — relative performance ''to each other'' — the dreaded “[[curve]]” — is not the measure that matters. It’s not a measure that even makes ''sense''. What matters is net outcome: what do you get out of an employee, compared to what you put in.  

The problem, of course, is that beyond revenue generating roles, and especially for risk management and control staff ''it is really hard to know''.<ref>Divers essays on [[legal value]], [[bullshit jobs]] and so on, refer.</ref> How do you count the dogs that don’t bark in the night-time?

HR’s answer is not to try, but instead focus on what you do know — the spread of salaries across grades — and to focus on regularising that. One does so by fitting staff, based on a compulsory relative assessment, to that model.<ref>how do you use data measure the relative worth of a football team? Does the striker who runs 10km, scores a goal a game better than the goalie who covers 400m and scores none. Jaap Stamp example.</ref>