We want to know if the employee is on-track with the company's expectations of their performance AND is the company on-track with the employee's expectations of their career! It's not a perfect solve, and would love to hear more about how you've solved this differently! The best solution we've come up with is, at Goodway Group, we strongly encourage monthly on-track discussions for BOTH the manager and employee. The reality of power asymmetry sucks, that an employer is likely 100% of an employee's income, but an employee (esp in large companies) is likely a small fraction of that company's output. This last point is something I've thought hard about, though.
This is not 100 - or even 30 - years ago. This does exist, but we're past the time where people are just thankful to have a job. The job market overall sets the rate for roles, but there's a case to be made that asking a $50k employee to take part in multiple hours of interviews is respectful rather than disrespectful by showing them they are as vital to a company's culture and future as someone at the top of the pay scale.įinally, when I read Matthew Wohl post, it feels as though power asymmetry may be a cause behind the desire to limit a candidate's time commitment to one interview. Second, that someone makes $65k or $75k - or even $50k or $150k - doesn't accurately value their potential to contribute. The *candidate* shouldn't want a job after only one interview! More behind this:įirst, I want the potential employee to have the opportunity to learn about the role and culture in which they're going to spend a large amount of their waking hours for (hopefully) the next several years. I understand the intent of this, but think it's missing something crucial.
0 kommentar(er)
