Gary Varga (1/27/2014)
djackson 22568 (1/27/2014)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/25/2014)
Comments posted to this topic are about the item <A HREF="/articles/Editorial/106276/">Management at Scale</A>Steve, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I recognize that you are not disparaging workers, or at least do not intend to, when you say
All too often I find there are too many workers that want to get their job done, without providing more value than they cost.
Still, there are some of us who are "stars" where we work who will incur an emotional response to that statement. I know I did. Why? Because I believe that a lot of performance issues are due to inappropriate treatment from management, along with insufficient compensation. I give far more than I am paid for. About 10% of my co-workers do the same. Some of our team performs just fine, but may not be considered "stars" by others. A few of our team are substandard.
While I believe those who are not up to standards should be mentored until they show sufficient improvement, I know that most of them are underpaid significantly.
My view is that you pay for the position, and if someone can't cut it, you replace them. Too many companies pay substandard wages as a rule, and then blame poor performance on the employee. As my son would say "I call BS on that!"
I take more of an issue on effort given.
If someone currently lacks ability then either they mis-sold themselves (no sympathy), they need to know/know how to do more (management need to allow remedial action to occur e.g. training) or it is not the role they are best suited to (definitely a case-by-case basis). I certainly don't think that this editorial means to disparage anyone. Most of us at some time or other will not be providing the value for which we are paid as sometimes, new starters for example, the pay is for potential ability as well as current productivity.
...but if they can't be bothered then they can take the proverbial hike (that's means leave).
I don't disagree with you.
My point is that we need to question whether the performance issue is due to the employee or the employer. If it is the employer, than the employee should consider another opportunity. If it is the employee, then the things you said are spot on.
In our case, we have lost something like 60% of our department in the last couple years. We keep hearing that it isn't about compensation, but those of us who are in contact with those who left hear a different tale.
When you don't compensate appropriately, you see low performance, and high turnover. You don't lose the underperformers, though, you lose some of the high performers. Companies claim that since some of the high performers remain, it must not be pay, ignoring that not everybody jumps ship at the first chance they get. Some of us are like firemen, we see the challenge and run into the fire rather than away from it.
Others remain because they are not employable elsewhere, at least not at the performance level they provide. Frequently they cause additional turnover as the high performers take on their work, leading to increased frustration, and then they leave.
I stand by my claim that companies need to pay people at the appropriate scale. They need to recognize when they are paying too little and fix that. If you are paying correctly, providing training where appropriate, and you have people who just aren't working out, you need to fix it before it hurts moral and productivity.
Lastly, I KNOW Steve was not disparaging anyone, in fact I agree with most of what he is saying, I just want to make sure we consider the root cause, not just the symptoms. Low performance is not always an employee issue.
Dave