3 ms·
If you try to regress people closer to the norm you're going to lose those star performers - the ones who have outsized, convex effects on the company. A ficti
by spitfire 14y ago
If you try to regress people closer to the norm you're going to lose those star performers - the ones who have outsized, convex effects on the company.
A fictional example. If you squeeze everyone into a narrow band, you'll loose your patio11 star A/B tester. and with him, millions of dollars of easy profit.
- just2n 14y agoBut then he's clearly doing something to warrant the discrepancy in pay. That's what I'm saying. If I see he makes $250,000 and I make $150,000, and I ask "why?" and get an answer along the lines of "he provides us with x, y, and z, and those are extremely valuable to the business." Now that's fine, and I am empowered to be treated as a business partner. I can improve myself and provide something more valuable to the company to warrant better compensation with an understanding of what I can look to receive by providing more business value. But if I have no clue, why would I want to engage with my company on that level? It doesn't even feel appropriate to make such an approach with this nonsensical taboo. The point isn't to regress people that earn their difference in pay, the point is to regress people who don't earn their difference. An ancillary benefit is to provide everyone with a better understanding of their value and what value they provide the company, which makes it easier for people to grow professionally.