3 ms·

Because "a top performer" is not a wholistic judge of what someone is doing, how they got there, the circumstances surrounding that individual, etc. You're spe

Because "a top performer" is not a wholistic judge of what someone is doing, how they got there, the circumstances surrounding that individual, etc. You're speaking of this hierarchy of "obfuscated" value brought to the table and then comparing it to a somewhat simplistic ( rank 1 is 1x valuable, rank 2 is 2x,...nx valuable) image of compensation. that's not how the real world works. You're abstracting to the spherical cow level of understanding of reality, there isn't "the worker" and "the manager" there are positions and responsibilities, if a manager lost all their workers tomorrow, they would be more out of luck than if a set of workers lost their manager, on balance, the workers have the implicit understanding that they formulate the important core of whatever network they support. It's really only the social scaffolding we construct that maintains that hiearchy.

paisawalla 5y ago
You haven't addressed any part of this argument at all. Managers can and do stack rank their employees, and pay them differentially according to that ranking, I'm sorry if you're learning this just now. If anything, you've validated my point by agreeing that employee value is a holistic assessment -- i.e. it has non-quantitative elements. That understanding is what makes it possible for someone who produces less value for the company to argue that they actually produce more. Once they understand exactly how much is available to bargain over, the manager has no leverage to push back, and there is no reason not to make the case that one's non-quantitative competences are worth all of that gap. It costs approximately nothing to keep asking for more money.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  You're forgetting that there are other employees and other firms in the world. Either class is free to look outside the current relationship if they are unhappy, and this can rely entirely on subjective judgement. If you see a bunch of people who are paid more than you, you can judge that you'll be able to find another employer who will pay you what you want, but only if you have a reasonable overview of what the salaries are in the system. Same goes in the boss side, he can decide whether he wants to hit or stick. Information is absolutely crucial in markets.

paisawalla 5y ago

You haven't addressed any part of this argument at all. Managers can and do stack rank their employees, and pay them differentially according to that ranking, I'm sorry if you're learning this just now. If anything, you've validated my point by agreeing that employee value is a holistic assessment -- i.e. it has non-quantitative elements. That understanding is what makes it possible for someone who produces less value for the company to argue that they actually produce more. Once they understand exactly how much is available to bargain over, the manager has no leverage to push back, and there is no reason not to make the case that one's non-quantitative competences are worth all of that gap. It costs approximately nothing to keep asking for more money.

lordnacho 5y ago
You're forgetting that there are other employees and other firms in the world. Either class is free to look outside the current relationship if they are unhappy, and this can rely entirely on subjective judgement. If you see a bunch of people who are paid more than you, you can judge that you'll be able to find another employer who will pay you what you want, but only if you have a reasonable overview of what the salaries are in the system. Same goes in the boss side, he can decide whether he wants to hit or stick. Information is absolutely crucial in markets.