Anonymous said...
the rationale for the excluded positions is
unclear.
If the employees in these positions are very talented, then the average TC score for these employees should be higher than that for employees in non-excluded positions.
Well, then LANS says, it's not the employees, but the positions that they are in. These are mostly average employees, but we don't have that many of them and they are in important positions.
Ok., well if that's true, then then there should be significantly more postings for these excluded positions in the last 2 years, than for non-excluded positions. For example, the the excluded title/group combinations are 6% of all job titles/group combinations, we would expect a substantially higher percentage (than 6%) of postings to be from these select titles/group combos. If not, then what is the evidence that these people in these positions are so important that they must be excluded?
If the employees in these positions are very talented, then the average TC score for these employees should be higher than that for employees in non-excluded positions.
Well, then LANS says, it's not the employees, but the positions that they are in. These are mostly average employees, but we don't have that many of them and they are in important positions.
Ok., well if that's true, then then there should be significantly more postings for these excluded positions in the last 2 years, than for non-excluded positions. For example, the the excluded title/group combinations are 6% of all job titles/group combinations, we would expect a substantially higher percentage (than 6%) of postings to be from these select titles/group combos. If not, then what is the evidence that these people in these positions are so important that they must be excluded?
