3 ms·
No, the optimum strategy is to determine if compensating them to a mutually agreeable level is more or less expensive than losing their expertise and rolling so
by forgottenpass 11y ago
No, the optimum strategy is to determine if compensating them to a mutually agreeable level is more or less expensive than losing their expertise and rolling someone new in.
Just because parent said optimal strategy is to lay them off doesn't mean you have to act like that's _never_ going to be the case.
For the given hypothetical, the 'ol "get them to unknowningly train their replacement by pretending like you're rewarding them with more compensation and a direct report" could be the "optimal" strategy.
- protomyth 11y ago> Just because parent said optimal strategy is to lay them off doesn't mean you have to act like that's _never_ going to be the case. I thought it went without saying that you cannot force someone into an agreement. Agreements sometimes don't happen and then you pay the additional costs out of necessity. > For the given hypothetical, the 'ol "get them to unknowningly train their replacement by pretending like you're rewarding them with more compensation and a direct report" could be the "optimal" strategy. That might be someone's interesting play, but I think it is a poor strategy because it shows your employees and anyone else you are going to make agreements with that you are of the duplicitous sort and cannot be trusted. This will affect your long term prospects in a negative way. Never mind its a pretty poor way to go through life. Strategy should be thought of as long term.