3 ms·
It's a lot more tactical than that. That's just his first step (which is fluff, as you say). He suggests some methods for sorting out problems which seem reall
by wisty 13y ago
It's a lot more tactical than that. That's just his first step (which is fluff, as you say).
He suggests some methods for sorting out problems which seem really counter-intuitive; but political problems are not most problems.
A political problem (to him) is one that gets worse as you discuss it with other people. Either because it's zero sum, confrontational, or because it encourages squeaky wheels.
Let's factor his tactics out:
1. If you can make political stuff formal, it shuts down squabbling.
2. If something comes up outside the formal process, don't talk to the person who brought it up. Just shut them down, and figure out what to do about it without them.
- vicbrooker 13y agoPerhaps to summarise further: subjective favouritism (perceived or actual) will harm morale and should therefore be avoided?
- marcosdumay 13y agoYep, and therefore you want to create a completely unreasonably transparent organization. That'll solve everything. (Or, at least, that's what I got from the article.) No mention about not creating huge hierarchies in the first place, and not concentrating decisions at the top.
- gte910h 13y agoEh, these formal review processes with 0 outside discussion can REALLY hose you though if you have the pay scale at some tier off. You'll basically force that tier to leave to get the compensation they deserve. And when the economy in that area opens up, it will not necessarily just be one person who leaves at that time.
- ronaldx 13y agoMoney is not the only important factor here. If you have a pay scale slightly off, but people trust you have their interests in mind and intend to do the right thing - if there is suboptimal pay but good conditions - they won't leave. What worries me about the original article is that he seems to say: don't ever do anything in the interest of an individual employee; only do whatever is in the direct interest of the company. That seems a good way to create negative feeling amongst staff, which may indeed result in people seeking out better compensation.
- wisty 13y agoZero outside discussion doesn't mean zero awareness. There's bound to be someone who brings it up. But he's saying that you don't have a debate over it, and certainly don't pay off the people who complain - you fix it quietly. If the manager doesn't realise that they are paying too little ... honestly they are so dim I don't think any good advice will help. A manager should know more about the business side than the people they are managing.
- gte910h 13y ago> certainly don't pay off the people who complain - you fix it quietly. But that's exactly what the person i'm responding to said: No raises if you mention you are (all) underpaid (or you personally are underpaid). It leads to those games where promotion gets linked to compensation, so people are promoted because otherwise you'll lose them, not because they're best for that role. Companies pay low 5 figures to many databases to figure out how much to pay role X or Y or Z. I don't think managers and the people make budgets for departments are always aware of the salaries of different roles. And I don't think HR people are always aware of the differences between different people who make them worth X over worth 1.5X This is advocating for paying the way governments do. Is that really the solution? Because govt: that's the definition of apolitical. This is a solution that doesn't lead to the objective of the policy.