Comment by slowtrek
1 month ago
Could a company keep a subjective poor performer on for the lifespan of the company? As in, what is the plus or minus in overall revenue or profit from this charity? What if all companies did that? Could we distribute the "burden" of the charity across all companies for a better society? My point is, I don't even know if metrics are good or bad, we may need to look at why we see each other like this. Is it so offensive to the mind of the captain of a ship that they may have a few of not the best sailors? It's a chance for them to be on a ship, go on a journey. The concept of a "free ride" appears to be a serious moral hazard for us, but I can't figure out why.
Sure, as long as they don't have any responsibilities. I've been a great performer at some companies and a poor performer at others, including one that kept me around without letting me have any responsibilities. It was not good for me. But I have been through worse.
A better alternative I've seen is to help the poor performer hunt for a new job.
This is what Japan does. Employment is presumed to be for life. There are games companies play to get out very poor performers but most people get approximately lifetime employment.
How was that society taught this? Or how did they come to know this?
What are you asking
2 replies →
Are you going to accept such free rider in your team? You will eventually do both your and his tasks but for the same or worse pay. Given you have a fixed budget for the team - do you want to split it more ways?
Where can I send a CV?
If we were to do this, we wouldn't just pick someone so out of the range of what's needed. So basically, if you reframe your question, would I hire a 70 average student on a team of 90 average students? Yes. We would not pick the 50 average students. This is all possible within reason, the kind of stuff being discussed in this thread is to purge people who are 80 average students (free riders in a 95 average class).
Will we need to tutor and support the 70 average student? Yes. Why would we do this? It's good for the soul. The stuff I'm talking about has no place in business, as far as we care to understand as a society at the moment.
My dangerous opinion is that the purpose of a company is to provide a living for its employees.
6 replies →
This reminds me a bit of how VCs bet on a bunch of startups in full knowledge that many will fail. The failures in some sense get a “free ride”. Why not the same with people?