this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
931 points (98.1% liked)
Games
32368 readers
1209 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honest question: what’s bad about firing the “bad performers”?
If they wanted to fire the "bad performers" then they'd be firing the CEOs and higher ranked people, not those actually making the products work.
Nothing, if that’s genuinely what you’re doing.
But it’s dangerous to incentivize it, because you get short-term gains by firing anyone, whether or not it’s the right long-term call.
It’s also just difficult to identify bad performers. Fundamental attribution error is a bitch. And because we’re really bad at seeing the entire system surrounding someone’s productivity, we tend to blame operator error only to find that the next operator we hire has the exact same problem.
Exactly. It's just goosing the numbers. The company made this much in profit, and the cost-cutting from firing people will save money immediately, so it looks great... on paper... for a little while. It doesn't matter if the company is gutted, because the CEO and most of the investors will dip before things get too bad, and go onto the next thing. The employees will suffer and the customers will be upset, but CEOs don't answer to them, they answer to shareholders, and shareholders just want the line to go up this quarter.