3 ms·
> That’s the cynical approach, but most companies don’t actually want to lose valuable employees. While an abstract rational actor like a company might come to
by munchbunny 5y ago
> That’s the cynical approach, but most companies don’t actually want to lose valuable employees.
While an abstract rational actor like a company might come to this conclusion, day to day line managers often do not come to the same conclusions. A low performing employee affected by personal issues is dead weight on said line manager's budget and headcount, and therefore their metrics and their own performance and promotion. The trickle-down performance model often doesn't incentivize long-term-focused management practices.
- crispyambulance 5y agoGiven that the employee was making ~300K, we can figure that his manager is probably making 50% to 100+% more. I find it mind-boggling that the manager could not find it within himself to give some slack to the employee. I guess maybe he didn't want to slow down the rate at which he was pulling in F-U money.
- sangnoir 5y ago> I guess maybe he didn't want to slow down the rate at which he was pulling in F-U money. Bingo! The manager's 10-30% bonus was on the line; and they probably saw the stressed employee not quite through a human lense, but was more of a broken cog that was gumming up the works and tanking the manager's metrics/KPIs.
- loopz 5y agoIn my book, those are broken people and managers.
- hawaiianbrah 5y agoI’m a manager and don’t make 50% to 100+% more than the people that report to me that are around my level.
- NullPrefix 5y ago40% more?
- my123 5y agoMuch less. Teams where the manager is paid less than the engineers that they manage aren't rare either.
- hawaiianbrah 5y agoYeah, I'm making about $10k less in salary than someone that reports to me of the same level.
- runamok 5y agoDepends on the org but often new hires make close to the same salary as a manager that's been around for a few years. The difference may be in the bonus though.