One thing that never ceases to amaze and amuse me is just how it is possible for someone to be promoted into incompetence. When someone is good at their work, they may be assumed to be good enough to try out a superior position. As a result, they are promoted. Of course, we know the cycle eventually winds up promoting someone into a position they are really not very good at. We also know that the sound decision in this situation, to step down, is very difficult to make considering how much prestige is lost from the move.
Allowing people to try out the new position, and pull back if found unsuitable, seems to be a fair solution to such situations. However, the other very real issue is how a superior position's pay is almost invariably higher than that of a lower position. This presents a rather strong disincentive for would-be demoters: even if no prestige is lost, salary would go down as well.
Pay just does not seem to scale well in relation to performance/productivity. A highly productive tier 1 employee may do more for the company than a mediocre tier 2, yet the tier 2 will most likely earn more. It makes little economic sense. In fact, some companies deliberately refrain from promoting a highly skilled employee out of the fear that doing so would result in the loss of a good performer. Were the pay structure to be revised to allow a flatter salary distribution amongst the tiers, it may well be that a superior personnel spread could be achieved.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment