« Hicks & Gillett: ownership in question | Main | The X Factor & the Easterlin paradox »

October 15, 2010



Could some of the changes in performance be down to transition? Were the reductions in performance permanent? You might well include this (harmonious culture, colleagues who have spent a lot of time with each other etc etc) as part of the organizational talent, but surely this is not permanent. That doesn't really detract from the overpayment idea in the short term though,
And maybe Mrs Lampard can't perform in the mornings?! And on that subject, there are surely elements of this in club vs country discussions in football.

Paolo Siciliani

Very good post. The conclusion should not obviously be to hide wage inequalities. Instead there should be full transparency in order to allow employee to redress those inequality either by obtaining adjustments under the threat of moving elsewhere - search on the jop should be easier with full transparency.


Not entirely convinced by the conclusions on this one. Shouldn't the desire of the current employer to keep their employees be accounted for because they fear the effects of transition?

Evidently in Bleakley's case the BBC overvalued her when they tried but ultimately failed to retain her services, and only had the effect of increasing her future salary:

Organisations may hold the talent but it is difficult for them to evaluate whether they can manage change and will have to gamble when they want to avoid any changes.


A very good article about organisations by Malcolm Gladwell from 2002 - http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_07_22_a_talent.htm

basically his points are:

* A good organisation trumps just having good people
* A bad organisation with bad motives (example Enron) makes even good people perform badly

*Talent is overrated

john Terry's Mum

Wonder what C. Ronaldo might say to Rooney aboout this.

Michael Fowke

You can include newspaper columnists.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad