Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleF
That's a good way to put it. A sustainment position could be like Sliver's "Sue" example. Just because Sue is worth more but Sliver's payment for a specific job role that doesn't need all of Sue's extra qualifications. But Sue could be much happier in a sustainment situation because she prefers to be a big fish in a small pond that she knows every inch of vs a big fish in a big pond where there are many things that are unknown or just tiresome to continue to have to navigate.
Sliver is not stealing from Sue IMO if he cannot pay Sue what she is "worth" based on qualifications if the compensation for the job role Sliver required and advertised is fair.
Just like relationships, nothing is ever 100% match. You just work with whatever is available and determine if you want to continue the relationships or not.
|
I appreciate that, but that's not quite what I was referring to. If anyone wants to be overqualified in a job that's up to them. It's how they perform the role that I would care about, and if they're interested in doing something else.
I will say this though, if either role is unable to perform their duties - for example, meeting deadlines or submitting reports on time - due to flex day usage, sick days, extra-curricular appointments or anything else - then there would have to be a conversation about performance and responsibilities.
Additionally I know what kind of roles I would likely be hiring for if I was doing a startup vs. a mature enterprise. Based on my experience I would want growth-driven roles that don't mind putting in odd/irregular hours or going beyond their normal job description to help get a fledgling company off the ground.