Lateral quitter: Difference between revisions

Lateral quitter (view source)

Revision as of 10:34, 7 January 2023

926 bytes added , 7 January 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,893

edits

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 Management will steadfastly deny any lateral quitter is missed. The trend towards “[[exit interview]] by [[chatbot]]” — if they bother with one at all — suggests corporations systematically undervalue the people they are losing.
-[[HR]] departments everywhere seem gripped by the conviction that having employees ''at all'' is a matter for regret. Convinced that robots, or [[offshoring]], or [[outsourcing]], are better options, the [[HR]] military-industrial complex makes scant effort to discourage, impede or even identify those thinking of leaving, let alone asking those who do what their motivations were.
+[[HR]] departments everywhere seem gripped by the conviction that having employees ''at all'' is a matter for regret. Convinced that robots, [[chatbot]]s, [[offshoring]], or [[outsourcing]], are better options, the [[HR]] military-industrial complex makes scant effort to discourage, impede or even ''identify'' those thinking of leaving, let alone asking those who do what their motivations were.
+Now: if staff are such a waste of time, why go to the trouble of hiring them at all?
 On the premise that all staff bring ''some'' value and, unless your approach to hiring is properly catastrophic, a good half bring [[Cost-value threshold|more than they cost]], lateral quitting is, broadly, a [[negative-sum game]]. That is, a game businesses should try not to play.
+If you must view your staff as capital, then look at it this way: sell ''under''performing assets, by all means. Don’t let ''performing'' assets walk out the door.
 So, ''some'' curiosity amongst the good people of [[human resources]] might be in order, for no other reason than to generate juicy [[metric]]s.
@@ Line 14: / Line 18: @@
 ===The [[data]]-richness of resignation===
-The [[JC]] finds inflated expectations of aggregated data tiresome — necessarily dead and backward-looking as data are — but even they have some worth when the questions we are asking are themselves historical. So:
+The [[JC]] finds inflated expectations of [[data modernism|aggregated data]] [[tiresome]] — necessarily dead and backward-looking as data are — but even they have some worth when the questions asked are themselves historical.
+So:
+What percentage of staff ''chose'' to leave? In what departments? After how long? At what seniority? From which departments? ''Where'' to? ''Why''?
+This kind of data might suggest answers to the question: ''what does the firm do, or permit,  that drives good people away''?
+Who are the poor managers? Where are the dreary departments? Which level is least proportionately rewarded? Answering questions like these can, in a small way, inform future behaviour: ''do more of this, and less of that''.
-What percentage of staff are choosing to leave? In what departments? After how long? At what level? From which departments? ''Where'' to? ''Why''?
+It also turns the competency spotlight on an area where, internally, it is rarely pointed: ''management''.
-This kind of data might suggest some answers to this question: ''what does the firm do, or permit,  that drives good people away''? Who are the poor managers? Where are the dreary departments? Which level is  least proportionately rewarded? Answering questions like these can, in a small way, inform future behaviour: ''do more of this, and less of that''.
+The [[exit interview]] is a unique chance to gather information staff are otherwise ''strongly'' disinclined to give you. Strictures of [[chain of command]] and conventions of corporate obsequy mean continuing staff — those with half a brain, at any rate — won’t usually tell you what they really think.
-So, the [[exit interview]] a unique chance to gather data staff are otherwise strongly disinclined to give you. Strictures of [[chain of command]] and general conventions of corporate obsequy mean wise staff won’t usually tell you what they really think. But free, for the first and last time, of those chilling effects, ''they might in an [[exit interview]]''.
+''What pissed you off about working here? Who were the shittiest managers? What was the biggest drag?''
+But free, for the first and last time, of those chilling effects of free speech, ''they might just tell you in an [[exit interview]]''.
 Why not at least ask?
 === Lateral quitters are ''good'' staff, [[Q.E.D.|QED]] ===
-Lateral quitters tend to be ''good'' employees: ones you ''didn’t'' want to leave, who contributed more than they cost. They will be that, at any rate, if HR capability is working passably — [[Spartan if]] — because if so, you will have already thinned out the laggards. Right?
+General ''[[a priori]]'' proposition: Lateral quitters are ''good'' employees: ones you ''don’t'' want to leave, who added value.
+They will be if HR capability is working passably — [[Spartan if]] — because if so, you will have already dispatched the laggards.
+Commercial firms are not charities for the intellectually vulnerable.<ref>Though, some forget this. A large financial services institution recently displayed in its internal branding: “We are proud of our [[diversity]] policy. We hire regardless of physical or mental ability.”</ref> They should actively exit employees who are not performing to expectation.
 Maxim: {{maxim|Professional employment should not be a hostage situation. Either way.}}
 ===The [[competence phase transition]]===
 Now, it is true: there ''is'' a “[[bid/ask spread]]” between staff you genuinely value and those you would not mind never seeing again.