Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If an inadequate raise (thus inadequate compensation) is a sign of disrespect, then creating a rule which causes inadequate raises is institutionalizing disrespect. What I'm trying to say is, it isn't better, it's worse. By creating pre-commitment not to give raises in excess of a certain amount, if they make it more expensive for them to do so.

quoting: ``Here we find the manager striving to achieve his goal by eliminating opportunities, contracting his set of alternatives, although discussions of bargaining often rule this out axiomatically. [...] The resolution of the paradox is that the manager, by his tactic of "tying one hand behind him" hopes for a favorable effect on his employee's expectations.``

from The Theory and Practice of Blackmail by Daniel Ellsberg (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P3883....), I swapped blackmailer/manager and victim/employee. The document is a really insightful take on negotiation I think except for the fact the it used the loaded terms blackmailer/victim.

There are plenty of organizations which are unable to recognize and/or reward high performance, and plenty of organizations which create compensation plans as if employees were fungible with infinite supply at their set salaries, and then depend on the psychological comfort of certainty and corresponding fear of the unknown to retain the workers, so although it isn't rare or even uncommon, that might be the sort of thing that made him angry.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: