Bill James: This Is Not Capitalism. It Is Organized Theft.

Come on YF, keep up ... If the janitorial staff's not paid above the going rate for its services, clearly the company culture is one of selfishness.

 

You don't think it's better that employees feel they have a stake in the company's success and well-being?

Or, to use an old GOP slogan, you don't think it's better for employees to have some skin in the game?

 

I disagree. It's generally beneficial for employees to share salary (market) information to appropriately understand their relative values.

 

OK, I'll concede that point (the information part). So let me amend my truly radical suggestion*:

If C's not happy that A paid B so much, C needs to either find another job or grow the fuck up.




*There is the discrimination angle -- race, sex, etc. -- that's not in play in this discussion. The esteemed Mr. James' proposal deals only with disparities in compensation across vast swaths of skills and responsibilities.

 

Interesting argument that when it comes to salaries, transparency is something to avoid.

And, of course, pay and perks do matter when it comes to company morale whether it is free breakroom coffee to being able to take some time off. And, of course, a happy employee makes for a better company and, in the long run, more profitable operation because training up new employees to deal with a constant churn is expensive and hurts the bottom line of any organization.

Does that mean that companies should have a pay ceiling for its employees? Yes and no, having pre-negotiated salary ranges for positions is a good thing but, for example, capping a CEO's pay at 100X the least paid employee is dumb beyond words.

 

What about, instead of 100X the lowest salary, make it 100X the median? Still can pay the janitor the lower salary and gives the CEO more, but doesn't give them an excess.

Say the janitor makes $25K a year, the office worker makes $50K and the manager makes $75K. Median salary is $50K, meaning CEO can make $5 million. Want CEO to make $6 million? Then the median goes up to $60K.

 

I think you'd be surprised at how not "of course" these relationships are. It's been years since I've read any of that research literature, but I'd have heard of any major breakthroughs (and I haven't). The relationship between a firm's compensation scheme and its performance is murky indeed.

 

The whole relationship between happy employees and company health is a lot murkier than people assume.

 

I have always been at my happiest when I had jack shit to do, which makes for great lunches and not a lot of company productivity.

 

Demand for our time is increasingly exceeding our capacity — draining us of the energy we need to bring our skill and talent fully to life. Increased competitiveness and a leaner, post-recession work force add to the pressures. The rise of digital is perhaps the biggest influence, exposing us to an unprecedented flood of information and requests that we feel compelled to read and respond to at all hours of the day and night.

Curious to understand what most influences people’s engagement and productivity at work, we partnered with the Harvard Business Review last fall to conduct a survey of more than 12,000 mostly white-collar employees across a broad range of companies and industries. We also gave the survey to employees at two of The Energy Project’s clients — one a manufacturing company with 6,000 employees, the other a financial services company with 2,500 employees. The results were remarkably similar across all three populations.

Employees are vastly more satisfied and productive, it turns out, when four of their core needs are met: physical, through opportunities to regularly renew and recharge at work; emotional, by feeling valued and appreciated for their contributions; mental, when they have the opportunity to focus in an absorbed way on their most important tasks and define when and where they get their work done; and spiritual, by doing more of what they do best and enjoy most, and by feeling connected to a higher purpose at work.

The more effectively leaders and organizations support employees in meeting these core needs, the more likely the employees are to experience engagement, loyalty, job satisfaction and positive energy at work, and the lower their perceived levels of stress. When employees have one need met, compared with none, all of their performance variables improve. The more needs met, the more positive the impact.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/opinion/sunday/why-you-hate-work.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article&_r=1

 

Intentional or not, this is great stuff.

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but a happy employee doesn't always mean an over paid or even well paid employee because pay is just one part of the compensation package each person gets.

It might be because the insurance is really good and that's what keeps employees around. Or it might be the insurance that makes them leave.

I have zero doubt that if I had time to pull the numbers and look at the research, what I'd find is that any company with a really high retention rate is a company that is doing very well.

Places with high retention rates mean that employees are at least satisfied and, insert crazy talk, happy.