3 ms·

>Apparently, one of the corporate policies at this telco was to only offer significant raises for retention purposes if the employee had another offer. Yes, an

>Apparently, one of the corporate policies at this telco was to only offer significant raises for retention purposes if the employee had another offer. Yes, and I'm not sure if I feel completely negative about it. On the one hand, just pay up if the value is there, don't play games, right? On the other, the employer is "calling your bluff" about it being, more or less, about money alone. In the end, the policy works, I think.

brightball 3y ago
Yep. The older I get, the more I understand it too.
zmgsabst 3y ago
I consider it a red flag when employers take antagonistic positions, such as “calling my bluff”. That shows a clear level of disrespect and willingness to play games with my life — and is the sort of outcome one should expect if you allow departments like HR to engage in dark triad behaviors inside the company. HR treating employees like cattle to exploit is a Day 2 failure mode.
- lazide 3y ago
  Sure. It’s also really common.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    Sure — and literally flies your planes into the ground. Ask Boeing.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Sure - and do you think that means it doesn’t exist after that, or will cease existing at any point in the future regardless of how much we want it to?
      - zmgsabst 3y ago
        Sure — we see that behavior routinely destroy companies who engage in it, while the opposite causes corporate growth. This creates a constant flux of new companies engaging in healthy partnership with their employees and old companies cycling back to rekindle growth — and which removes the ones who engage in that problematic behavior, persistently. So that behavior always brings about its own cessation. See my point about “Day 2”. Engaging in Day 2 policy is a choice; working with Day 2 companies is a choice. There’s nothing at all which requires this phenomenon, other than people make lame excuses as if dark triad behavior is some unavoidable law of physics.
        lazide 3y ago
        Sure - except plenty of companies and gov’ts are steady state this way and don’t end up destroyed by it. At least any faster than any other companies/gov’ts seem to be. You’re ’just world’ hypothesis’ing all over the place here. I’m not saying it’s good behavior. It’s far more widespread than you’re giving it credit for, and it has far less connection to bad results than you are giving it credit for. Often, the ‘good’ companies just paper over it better, but it’s still the same policy - but fewer folks end up seeing it so directly.
- somsak2 3y ago
  How else can an employer decide who to give a raise to or not? What prevents everyone from asking for a raise? I think the employer-employee relationship, especially when it comes to salary, is inherently antagonistic because our interests are basically 100% oppositely aligned. An employee always wants to be paid more; an employer always wants to pay less.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    > an employer wants to pay less Your dark triad mentality is showing through: An employer doesn’t have an inherent reason to pay less — they have an inherent reason to increase value of the company. That people conflate the two goals of the company is purely a result of unchecked dark triad thinking in HR — and the preference of exploitation over growth. This is a Day 2 failure mode because the substitution of your real goal (“make more money”) for a dark triad goal (“maximally exploit my workers”) leads to self-defeating behavior on the primary goal: you make less money by exploiting your workers. However, as it satisfies the desire to abuse from unhealthy people, we tend towards that defective behavior when dark triad behavior isn’t regulated appropriately.
    - somsak2 3y ago
      I wouldn't necessarily say that wanting to pay an employee less is "exploitive," just as I wouldn't label an employee's desire to make more an attempt to exploit the company either. I'm just saying that those are opposing goals that are going to make it difficult to build a fully aligned relationship between the two parties. Not sure I really understand how this position relates to the Dark Triad concept. I thought that these days DT was really only bandied about by people in the pick-up community with something to sell to frustrated men.
      - zmgsabst 3y ago
        I would call attempting to earn more than a fair share of the value you create “exploiting the company”. You’re the one creating a false impression by insisting that those are the only goals one could have in this situation: You can interact in modalities besides trying to maximally exploit your partner — and game theoretically, those cooperative modalities are dominant. The mistake you’re making, due to viewing the world through a Machiavellian lens, is supposing that’s the only or even optimal strategy — when empirically and theoretically it’s not. That you closed out with a lame insult (“muh incels!”) shows perhaps my comment struck closer to home than you’re comfortable with.

brightball 3y ago

Yep. The older I get, the more I understand it too.

zmgsabst 3y ago

I consider it a red flag when employers take antagonistic positions, such as “calling my bluff”. That shows a clear level of disrespect and willingness to play games with my life — and is the sort of outcome one should expect if you allow departments like HR to engage in dark triad behaviors inside the company. HR treating employees like cattle to exploit is a Day 2 failure mode.

lazide 3y ago
Sure. It’s also really common.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  Sure — and literally flies your planes into the ground. Ask Boeing.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Sure - and do you think that means it doesn’t exist after that, or will cease existing at any point in the future regardless of how much we want it to?
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      Sure — we see that behavior routinely destroy companies who engage in it, while the opposite causes corporate growth. This creates a constant flux of new companies engaging in healthy partnership with their employees and old companies cycling back to rekindle growth — and which removes the ones who engage in that problematic behavior, persistently. So that behavior always brings about its own cessation. See my point about “Day 2”. Engaging in Day 2 policy is a choice; working with Day 2 companies is a choice. There’s nothing at all which requires this phenomenon, other than people make lame excuses as if dark triad behavior is some unavoidable law of physics.
      - lazide 3y ago
        Sure - except plenty of companies and gov’ts are steady state this way and don’t end up destroyed by it. At least any faster than any other companies/gov’ts seem to be. You’re ’just world’ hypothesis’ing all over the place here. I’m not saying it’s good behavior. It’s far more widespread than you’re giving it credit for, and it has far less connection to bad results than you are giving it credit for. Often, the ‘good’ companies just paper over it better, but it’s still the same policy - but fewer folks end up seeing it so directly.
somsak2 3y ago
How else can an employer decide who to give a raise to or not? What prevents everyone from asking for a raise? I think the employer-employee relationship, especially when it comes to salary, is inherently antagonistic because our interests are basically 100% oppositely aligned. An employee always wants to be paid more; an employer always wants to pay less.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  > an employer wants to pay less Your dark triad mentality is showing through: An employer doesn’t have an inherent reason to pay less — they have an inherent reason to increase value of the company. That people conflate the two goals of the company is purely a result of unchecked dark triad thinking in HR — and the preference of exploitation over growth. This is a Day 2 failure mode because the substitution of your real goal (“make more money”) for a dark triad goal (“maximally exploit my workers”) leads to self-defeating behavior on the primary goal: you make less money by exploiting your workers. However, as it satisfies the desire to abuse from unhealthy people, we tend towards that defective behavior when dark triad behavior isn’t regulated appropriately.
  - somsak2 3y ago
    I wouldn't necessarily say that wanting to pay an employee less is "exploitive," just as I wouldn't label an employee's desire to make more an attempt to exploit the company either. I'm just saying that those are opposing goals that are going to make it difficult to build a fully aligned relationship between the two parties. Not sure I really understand how this position relates to the Dark Triad concept. I thought that these days DT was really only bandied about by people in the pick-up community with something to sell to frustrated men.
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      I would call attempting to earn more than a fair share of the value you create “exploiting the company”. You’re the one creating a false impression by insisting that those are the only goals one could have in this situation: You can interact in modalities besides trying to maximally exploit your partner — and game theoretically, those cooperative modalities are dominant. The mistake you’re making, due to viewing the world through a Machiavellian lens, is supposing that’s the only or even optimal strategy — when empirically and theoretically it’s not. That you closed out with a lame insult (“muh incels!”) shows perhaps my comment struck closer to home than you’re comfortable with.