Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.
Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.
(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)
This is correct. It's illogical to presume that rational employers promote people who they perceive as unlikely to advance the company's interests. Executives are compensated directly and/or indirectly based on company profitability or, in some cases, on public perceptions of future profitability. To deliberately limit that is to act against their own interests, and that's not how people behave. That said, of course sometimes employers are mistaken in their judgments, but they usually don't take too long to correct their mistakes once those become evident.
Eyeroll. Says the Republican employment defense side attorneys.
Explain why anyone would do something which is not in their personal best interests? It doesn't happen - basic human nature. Every action we take fundamentally is in our own interests one way or another.
Only sociopaths think this way.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.
Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.
(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)
This is correct. It's illogical to presume that rational employers promote people who they perceive as unlikely to advance the company's interests. Executives are compensated directly and/or indirectly based on company profitability or, in some cases, on public perceptions of future profitability. To deliberately limit that is to act against their own interests, and that's not how people behave. That said, of course sometimes employers are mistaken in their judgments, but they usually don't take too long to correct their mistakes once those become evident.
Eyeroll. Says the Republican employment defense side attorneys.
Explain why anyone would do something which is not in their personal best interests? It doesn't happen - basic human nature. Every action we take fundamentally is in our own interests one way or another.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.
Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.
(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)
This is correct. It's illogical to presume that rational employers promote people who they perceive as unlikely to advance the company's interests. Executives are compensated directly and/or indirectly based on company profitability or, in some cases, on public perceptions of future profitability. To deliberately limit that is to act against their own interests, and that's not how people behave. That said, of course sometimes employers are mistaken in their judgments, but they usually don't take too long to correct their mistakes once those become evident.
Eyeroll. Says the Republican employment defense side attorneys.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.
Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.
(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)
This is correct. It's illogical to presume that rational employers promote people who they perceive as unlikely to advance the company's interests. Executives are compensated directly and/or indirectly based on company profitability or, in some cases, on public perceptions of future profitability. To deliberately limit that is to act against their own interests, and that's not how people behave. That said, of course sometimes employers are mistaken in their judgments, but they usually don't take too long to correct their mistakes once those become evident.
Anonymous wrote:Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.
Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.
(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)