I asked Eagles Field to clarify what he meant by that.
E.g., what category of workers was "#1" for which parameter (he had mentioned two: "likeability" and "security")?
You proffer:
Senior ie experienced/older. Someone who can close a deal and not just for short term gains but keeping clients. Long Term
But I greatly doubt that the U.S. govt. or any organization collects statistics for categories like "experienced" or "can close a deal and not just for short-term gains." (Such terms or characterizations do not lend themselves to exact definition for the purpose of statistical compilation.)
I am asking Eagles Field to please state what category of U.S. workers were "#1" in which category for 9 of the last quarters.
Suggesting something like "the really great guys who make lots of money for the company and always keep the customers happy" cannot be taken seriously.
Regards,
Alex “mountains from mole hills” Quixote, babe, I want you to consider a New Year’s Resolution of being less the annoyingly combative cretin. You bring obtuse an art form.
Phil got it right ... sales ... and I’m jaw-dropping good.
Ok, I’ll rephrase this a bit. Im not sure where your animus lies, this person is not a illegal or welfare parasite, he’s one of millions our govt depends on are you upset he is proud and probably in the 1%? That’s how sales guys are! his Depending on the company or the exact job terms of the role,
a senior sales person is not only worth his weight in gold to his company and its clients not just in unquantifiable goodwill but in measurable results for the employer(revenues) and client (cost savings, throughput. Such a person can draw salary and commission and bonus and stock options >= the level a dr or lawyer can without having the responsibilities or demands of those jobs. And they like I can feel good we’re not living off of the taxpayers dime and be unaccountable job wise although it’s absolutely no shame to be fortunate enough to be working even in an overcompensated union position with non-merit based pay and benefits that have been collectively bargained.
I may have been myself unclear. What I meant was:
Suggesting something a category like "the really great guys who make lots of money for the company and always keep the customers happy" cannot be taken seriously.
After all, there's always room for improvement in formulating one's thoughts.
So you see, I have nothing against high-performers - it's simply that a characterization like "high-performers" is unsuited to statistical analysis (at least by governmental officials and in a national scope).
Regards,