There is something which I cannot understand despite the fact that I have been in the field of human resources for the past 15 years. We know as human resources practitioners that if a person who does not stay in a job for more than a year he/she cannot really grasp or contribute to the job at hand. This way it will be difficult for the individual to accurately define the accomplishments one might have on the job.
Yet when we recruit people, we allow ourselves to pay for a higher salary for an individual who has not stayed in a job or role long enough to to demonstrate his/her value. Are we that short on talent that we are willing to compromise what the value an individual brings to the table? Yet, when a person stays in a job/role his/her salary does not increase as much as the other person who job-hops and does not contribute just as much as the other.
There seems to be something amiss here..
No comments:
Post a Comment