Employers Are About to Take Back Control

[Desk trauma]

No wonder is it hard for some companies to adjust when the labor market gets tight, they're too used to having control over the situation to have an objective view of the supply and demand constraints.

Tut tut, you should know it’s only us plebs who must adjust to economic forces being against us. When our betters start to suspect they feel a pinch it’s time for intervention.

 

[rjs330]

But I don't see a competent reply TO inform the ignorant Like this, for example. Making a pronouncement and giving a SINGLE anecdote to think you've actually addressed the "ignorance on display".
That's insufficient.

The example of Dan Price's company is a pretty clear example of how well increasing employee pay can lead to more retention. If bosses keep seeing their workers as minions making them more money, workers pick up on that. And the youngsters? They won't stomach that anymore unless they also get a bump.


Google tells me the 5 main drivers of retentions: What are the 5 main drivers of employee retention?

To be clear I NEVER CLAIMED that better pay is never the answer. The ignorance is in thinking it's the only answer to finding employees. It's far more complicated than that. The ignorance is found in statements similar to, "if you just paid people more you would get more employees and wouldn't be short handed ".

You might be surprised that I agree with those 5 drivers of retention. It's all correct and companies who do all of those things well will have greater chance at success and keeping their people.

I suspect there may be differences in how those are interpreted by different individuals.

For example work/life balance to some means, I'm not working a minute past 40 hours unless someone is dying. Or I should be allowed to work my own schedule. There has to be work life balance to run the business as well. It has to work for both parties and that varies wildly between businesses. Cause if it works for the business and the employee to work their own schedule then why not? It's a win/win. But don't automatically assume that all office jobs are the same and can do that and keep things moving forward. Or that all office jobs can have all their meetings on line. Relationships are at play, discussions, whiteboards, give and take building a team is often crucial and you cannot do that on a computer screen all the time. And depending on the business the percentage of time you can zoom may vary.

But bottom line, those 5 things are critical to good retention.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

6. You have to offer feedback. And I don't just mean negative feedback. People need to know when they are doing well and how much you appreciate them. Spend time with them one on one. Get to know them, their values what they want to accomplish and provide feedback on how they can do that. Don't feed them a crap sandwich with praise on the top, criticism in the middle and praise on the bottom. That never works. Save you constructive criticism for specific times and events and show them exactly what to do to improve. Ask them how you can improve. What can you do better for them. Ask them how you can help them reach their goals.

So this often and not just once a year. Never ever surprise them on an evaluation. When they receive one they should know exactly what's on it cause you've been talking the entire year with them.

Whew I could go in but that's it.

When my company started with quarterly OKRs (Objectives and Key Results), I relished the change from annual evaluations. The work I do is highly variable and set of quarterly goals really kept me focused on what to do for the next couple months. After we got bought out, we went back to annual reviews and once again, I feel that a year doesnt allow for adjustments in what our client's changing needs are.

Oh, if you didnt see it, I started up a new thread in the business section and I would appreciate your input where I hope it will be less acrimonious. Management and business development

​

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm sure it would be very successful. You would fill your business with all the people you want and pay them all boatloads of money and still remain in business.

It just proves that you don't really know what it takes.

You imagining how my imaginary business would imaginary do proves what again?

 

[rambot]

Is this true or not?

 

[rjs330]

Here's a twist. Asking people to come to work when there isn't enough space for them. Quite short sighted. Why are you asking people to work at the office when you have no space for them to work? Desk sharing? Sounds good if your not bothering there at the same time.

Here's an idea, have employees split their time between home and the office. Give two people the same deal and have them work it out. Who come in when. Part of being a good leader is thinking through the consequences of your decisions and planning ahead.

This is poo leadership.

'They are still expecting me to come into work?': Remote worker says job expects her to start coming into the office. But they don't have a seat for her

'I have to battle having to find a seat.'

www.dailydot.com

 

[rjs330]

View attachment 331023

Is this true or not?

No it's not true. Efficient workers are given opportunities for more growth. And more chances at advancement. If you tackle this with the right attitude it will help you in th long run.

However, good leaders should also address issues of poor performance on the part of the other employees if they are the reason the other person has more work. Poor leaders just give the good worker more.work and let the other one do poor work.

Poor leaders also fail to reward the efficient worker for his/her efforts.

You could also have a conversation with your leaders about this too. If you keep a good positive outlook on it you might actually be able to work it out. But if you go in with the poor me attitude you probably won't get anywhere and then you will end up not being so efficient anymore which will also get you looked at differently and you will lose against you may have made.

And if do not receive any rewards for your efforts, raises, promotions, better opportunities for your extra efforts. Then it may be time to look elsewhere. But it starts with you.

How you look at things makes a world of difference. Attitude is 90% of what it's about. Cause you can leave still with a good attitude. It wasn't a good fit for you. You need a place that will recognize your efforts and good attitude.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No it's not true. Efficient workers are given opportunities for more growth. And more chances at advancement. If you tackle this with the right attitude it will help you in th long run.

The question is, do the "growth opportunities" match the effort exerted in order to attain them?

If you have 10 people, all making $12/hour, and all competing for that "assistant manager" (that may only pay $14.50 per hour), is that really worth busting your hump over?

Sure, the one person who worked the hardest may get it, but is the juice worth the squeeze? I'd say in a lot of cases, it's not.

While I'm still a fan of meritocracy as a principle, it depends on the upper and lower bounds.

If the difference is between $12/hour for someone who's "phoning it in" and $30/hour for a person who's busting their ass, then that's a good meritocracy because it shows that the leaders are willing to invest in the people working hard when applicable.

If the range $12 for the low end and $14 for the high end, then that seems to fit the adage of "leaving the underlings to fight over the crumbs while the head honcho makes off with the cake"

Speaking personally, if I was willing to work 3 times as hard and 3 times as long as someone else, I should have 3x their lifestyle in a true meritocracy. If doing so only got me paid marginally more than them and my only reward was an extra $1/hour and a picture on the wall for "Employee of the month", I'd be strongly considering "quiet quitting"

 

[FenderTL5]

No it's not true.

Okay, so it's not true.

Poor leaders just give the good worker more.work and let the other one do poor work.

Except in this situation where it is true.

Efficient workers are given opportunities for more growth. And more chances at advancement.

Does more opportunity and advancement mean "more work"? I'd say in many cases that answer is yes.

So the correct answer is; it's not true except in the instances where it is true.

 

[Pommer]

As OP, I wonder how @rjs330 views staff “comparing-salaries” around the water cooler?

 

[rjs330]

The question is, do the "growth opportunities" match the effort exerted in order to attain them?

If you have 10 people, all making $12/hour, and all competing for that "assistant manager" (that may only pay $14.50 per hour), is that really worth busting your hump over?

Sure, the one person who worked the hardest may get it, but is the juice worth the squeeze? I'd say in a lot of cases, it's not.

While I'm still a fan of meritocracy as a principle, it depends on the upper and lower bounds.

If the difference is between $12/hour for someone who's "phoning it in" and $30/hour for a person who's busting their ass, then that's a good meritocracy because it shows that the leaders are willing to invest in the people working hard when applicable.

If the range $12 for the low end and $14 for the high end, then that seems to fit the adage of "leaving the underlings to fight over the crumbs while the head honcho makes off with the cake"

Speaking personally, if I was willing to work 3 times as hard and 3 times as long as someone else, I should have 3x their lifestyle in a true meritocracy. If doing so only got me paid marginally more than them and my only reward was an extra $1/hour and a picture on the wall for "Employee of the month", I'd be strongly considering "quiet quitting"

Well I guess that's the decision you have to make. Is it worth it? But don't be short sighted with it. Maybe this $14 hr supervisor job is not the best. But it's an opportunity. Sure work hard for it, get it and do well and you can parlay that into something better. After all you now have experience that you can use to move on to a better company as a manager. You can now apply to manager jobs that pay more and have a better shot because you gained the experience.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said Jump at opportunities as frequently as you jump to conclusions.

Truth is you are rarely going to get 3x the amount of money if you work 3x as hard. The world doesn't work that way and you will miss much if you think that way. I'm a supervisor and I don't make 3x the money as my subordinates even though I may work 3x as hard. There is no such thing as that kind of meritocracy. But it doesn't mean meritocracy doesn't work. If you are judging success strictly on how much money you are going to amass, your not likely to ever be successful. True success happens when you bring value to others. And the more you move up the more chances and opportunities you get to add value to the people around you.

That's not to say that money isn't important at all. I've said that how a company pays you is often comensorate with how much they value you or at least the position. If the pay for a supervisor is $1 an hour more, they really aren't valuing the position. That being said though if you want to move up and get better opportunities elsewhere, it may be worth it in the long run. It's all up to what you want. I would think that you wouldn't be planning staying long term for a company like that anyway.

I have story to tell about the money vs value sometime.

 

[rjs330]

Okay, so it's not true.

Except in this situation where it is true.


Does more opportunity and advancement mean "more work"? I'd say in many cases that answer is yes.

So the correct answer is; it's not true except in the instances where it is true.

I wasn't very clear with my first sentence. I was looking deeper at it than just a sound bite. Yes efficient workers often get more work. That is true. But if you are looking at solely from that point of view thats all you have to say.

I would prefer to look at it more positively.

Like what I've learned is that efficient workers are given more work which they can parlay into greater success for themselves with the right attitude.

The previous statement comes across kind of negatively.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said Jump at opportunities as frequently as you jump to conclusions.

I would agree with that sentiment. However, I don't know that I'd call "grocery bagger" to "grocery bagger shift leader" an opportunity worth making major sacrifices for.

Truth is you are rarely going to get 3x the amount of money if you work 3x as hard.

That acknowledgment shows the flaws of the "100% meritocratic" mindset.

Don't get me wrong, meritocracy is a good thing...the people who work harder and come up with better ideas should be compensated more than the people "phoning it in". The problem is when that doesn't scale proportionally. The fact that a "Director of Marketing" can be terrible at their job and still make a salary that's out of reach of the people "lugging buckets around" (let's just call it, the Bud Light conundrum) highlights that that "hard work" and "compensation" are decoupled.

The world doesn't work that way and you will miss much if you think that way. I'm a supervisor and I don't make 3x the money as my subordinates even though I may work 3x as hard.

That's a problem

There is no such thing as that kind of meritocracy. But it doesn't mean meritocracy doesn't work.

Meritocracy is a great system and it works if the principles are applied consistently...but it's not. Until you can enter the "boys club" of your company, don't expect proportional raises.

If the pay for a supervisor is $1 an hour more, they really aren't valuing the position. That being said though if you want to move up and get better opportunities elsewhere, it may be worth it in the long run. It's all up to what you want. I would think that you wouldn't be planning staying long term for a company like that anyway.

I have story to tell about the money vs value sometime.

That's the reality for most people. They have to claw for marginal pay increases.

 

[rjs330]

As OP, I wonder how @rjs330 views staff “comparing-salaries” around the water cooler?

I don't know how you'd stop that. If employees want to share how much they each make I don't know how you stop it unless every employee signed a non-disclosure agreement. I wouldn't do anything like that.

If they want to share I guess that's up to them. I don't know how you stop that.

I mean most employees of the same position make pretty much the same money for the most part. Unless you tie raises and such to performance, which I'm fine with as long as there is CLEAR policy on how you can get the needed evaluations.

If an employee want to know what they have to do to get the raise then you need to be clear on how to get the raise. "Get a better eval" doesn't cut it.

 

[Nithavela]

Here's a twist. Asking people to come to work when there isn't enough space for them. Quite short sighted. Why are you asking people to work at the office when you have no space for them to work? Desk sharing? Sounds good if your not bothering there at the same time.

Here's an idea, have employees split their time between home and the office. Give two people the same deal and have them work it out. Who come in when. Part of being a good leader is thinking through the consequences of your decisions and planning ahead.

This is poo leadership.

'They are still expecting me to come into work?': Remote worker says job expects her to start coming into the office. But they don't have a seat for her

'I have to battle having to find a seat.'

www.dailydot.com

Maybe a bit too simple. What do you do if you need both people in the office? But in general, that's a sensible idea.

 

[rjs330]

Maybe a bit too simple. What do you do if you need both people in the office? But in general, that's a sensible idea.

I would say the odds are not very good that you need them both if you don't have space for them both. I think this may be further supported that you were able to function up to now without it. If you really need them both then you would find space for them both. NEED is the key.

You make space for needs.

 

[adrianmonk]

I used to work in the video game industry in the early 2000s. Most of the developers, artists, composers etc who joined video game companies were very passionate about their career. An equivalent developer working on a business application at a standard software firm made more money than a video game developer. Roles like testing still make barely more than working at a fast food joint, but nearing release, they get to work 10-12 hours daily, sometimes for months on end.

That industry is rife with abuse. Lots of "crunch time" where people worked 12-14 hours per day 7 days a week for months at a time. This was not because the developers were mediocre or not giving their 100%. This was due to management (and publishers) setting unrealistic schedules, constantly changing the specification multiple times mid cycle. For smaller studios, this crunch time can be accompanied with missed payroll (because the changed specs resulted in a missed milestone). Yet at least at the company I worked at, most developers stuck with it and worked their hardest to get the game released. The game was released, and the studio and IP were sold for over 100 million dollars.

Here is a post from the wife of a developer complaining about crunch time. EA: The Human Story

I have not worked, or applied for a job in the game industry since.