3 ms·
> All that leads to is "really nice, hard-working people" you would not fire jumping ship at the first sign of a slightly better deal, because why not? If you
by aianus 10y ago
> All that leads to is "really nice, hard-working people" you would not fire jumping ship at the first sign of a slightly better deal, because why not?
If you combine this behavior with really high compensation for those you keep, you'll likely be the best deal. Most companies' compensation does not match their rhetoric about 'hiring the best' and will balk at the cost to poach from you.
That and the fact that high-performers want to work with other high-performers so they wouldn't risk a crappier work environment without a big raise.
- asimuvPR 10y agoFrom experience: high performers tend to want to work alone. Most wise up and open their own company.
- talmand 10y agoA positive work environment and satisfaction is not just about compensation. Working with other high-performers is good, I agree, except the company policy is that high-performers can be shown the door at any moment due to various changes outside the control of that high-performer. That's not a good work environment.
- aianus 10y agoThat's a critique that may or may not apply to a given implementation of this idea. However, if the people being fired are treated with respect, severance, good references and if there's a general consensus amongst those remaining that the individuals were, in fact, low performers, I imagine there would be high morale.
- talmand 10y agoIf the definition of low performer is "really nice, hard-working people", then I suppose you have a point. But it would still suck to be hard-working and be let go because the company failed to provide you proper tasks to be considered a high performer. If you give a high performer nothing to do, or something outside their expertise, are they still a high performer?