It sounds as if you’ve (purposefully?) missed the point of Price’s Law. The point for management is to make sure that the highly productive are retained; that those people are rewarded. When a company starts to lose those people in the square root group, productivity falls rapidly. Often, it’s a death spiral with no return. So, if you need to downsize, make sure to retain the high producers and start letting lackluster employees go.
When you take something to the absurd, such as the company firing 90% of its workers and still expecting to be productive, that’s a fallacy of extremes. You can set up a straw man and make everything look ridiculous. It’s odd that you didn’t follow Einstein’s quote or is that part of the game?
I agree, you would like to keep the most productive. I just think there is no "law" to decide on the number. It might have been called "Price's Distribution" or observation, rule of thumb, etc. I totally agree with the strawman argument you made.
It sounds as if you’ve (purposefully?) missed the point of Price’s Law. The point for management is to make sure that the highly productive are retained; that those people are rewarded. When a company starts to lose those people in the square root group, productivity falls rapidly. Often, it’s a death spiral with no return. So, if you need to downsize, make sure to retain the high producers and start letting lackluster employees go.
When you take something to the absurd, such as the company firing 90% of its workers and still expecting to be productive, that’s a fallacy of extremes. You can set up a straw man and make everything look ridiculous. It’s odd that you didn’t follow Einstein’s quote or is that part of the game?
I agree, you would like to keep the most productive. I just think there is no "law" to decide on the number. It might have been called "Price's Distribution" or observation, rule of thumb, etc. I totally agree with the strawman argument you made.