3 ms·
If the marginal return per employee is still good then "lowering the bar" makes sense, not lowering the bar would be throwing money away - right? And during th
by JamisonM 4y ago
If the marginal return per employee is still good then "lowering the bar" makes sense, not lowering the bar would be throwing money away - right?
And during the pandemic certainly some of the new talent showing up was good, things changed and people stuck in jobs they were actually "too good for" moved on.
I wouldn't assume it was "filling quotas" - it was filling positions and the positions existed for some reason, they were making a lot of money and there was probably more work to do!
- stephc_int13 4y agoYou have to keep in mind that in this type of organization, managers are highly incentivized to grow their teams, by all means. The number of people "under" you is the dick measuring tape.
- manfre 4y agoAt my last company, the team's budget for merit increases was based upon the size of the team. More headcount meant more money available for promotions and fixing historical pay imbalances. It was not a good system that directly caused good employees to leave.
- stephc_int13 4y agoThis size=power issue is in my opinion an often-underestimated flaw of organization relying on middle-management.
- JamisonM 4y ago"Filling quotas" vs "hiring as many people as I can for clout" are different things and I suppose both are possible, but one imagines that both are enabled by the fundamental metric of generating revenue as justification. You hire ahead of growth, so you need to overcorrect when contraction occurs so it makes sense that if revenues are now shrinking so are the staffing levels.. it kinda feels like these explanations are projecting some weird politics on to very basic business logic.
- disgruntledphd2 4y agoTraditionally, Facebook hired in line with revenue, to keep revenue per head constant.