3 ms·
By far the most inefficient part of the hierarchy is at the very bottom. Workers slacking off, not working optimally, and still getting paid for the full 40 hou
by xwdv 5y ago
By far the most inefficient part of the hierarchy is at the very bottom. Workers slacking off, not working optimally, and still getting paid for the full 40 hours. Wouldn’t need so much redundancy if you could truly get their full output.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoThat's a management problem as well.
- alan-hn 5y agoAre you aware of any data or studies that back up this claim? I would love to read about it
- phoe-krk 5y ago> if you could truly get their full output. Getting the relative most out of the bottom line workers and finding and taking care of the underperformers is the direct responsibility of their managers, and I'm saying this unironically. Managing is about being a performance multiplier, and the most hands-on part of management always involves concrete teams of people doing concrete dirty work. It's the manager managers that are the problem mentioned here.
- cpeterso 5y agoAnd the productivity of line workers doesn't matter if management is prioritizing the wrong projects. Bad managers have a bigger negative impact than bad line workers.
- akomtu 5y agoIt's always the horses who fail the king. If only those lazy animals did more than the bare minimum, the king wouldn't need to be such a despot.
- willcipriano 5y ago> Wouldn’t need so much redundancy if you could truly get their full output. The incentive structure is that those workers capture much less than the value of their total output. If they worked harder so the firm required less employees, how do they benefit?