Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If true - that's a ridiculous policy to have in place.

Some people might just really love their current job, or don't want the responsibilities of moving up (I wouldn't want to have to manage people for instance). It'd be foolish to get rid of them if they're good at what they do.

Yeah, if that's true it is insane. It's possible for someone to be really good at their current job but have them not be good manager material.

Schmapdi wrote:
If true - that's a ridiculous policy to have in place.

Some people might just really love their current job, or don't want the responsibilities of moving up (I wouldn't want to have to manage people for instance). It'd be foolish to get rid of them if they're good at what they do.

Indeed it is typical senior management nonsense - that they of course are exempt from because.."reasons" Loyalty is often undervalued by such "people"

Besides there are certain type of specific roles that do not allow you to progress any further unless you change your role completely.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Schmapdi wrote:
If true - that's a ridiculous policy to have in place.

Some people might just really love their current job, or don't want the responsibilities of moving up (I wouldn't want to have to manage people for instance). It'd be foolish to get rid of them if they're good at what they do.

Indeed it is typical senior management nonsense - that they of course are exempt from because.."reasons" Loyalty is often undervalued by such "people"

i don't believe it for a second...
many of the same guys have been doing the same job for a decade at PP...
the illustrators, story writers, sculptors, rules writers, painters, are all old hands still doing the same job...
i'm sure you don't get rid of your technical experts, like mold makers and casters, just because they have not moved up to warehouse managers, you keep all your technical skill...

in my experience working for Matt and Sherry, i never felt that anything other than my own slacking would get me cut loose...
they both seem to care about their employees...
Matt can seem like a cold guy, but Sherry has always been lovely...
it could just be that a few old employees who didn't move up left, and have a different take on things because they couldn't get along with the boss...
i would take the "two year rule" with a whole shaker of salt...

cheers
jah

Yeah I'm not overly inclined to believe it either.

I think someone was confused between the Peter Principle and Privateer Press...

 silent25 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

They tend to have a fairly high turnover rate on their employees. I've heard some grapevine stuff that they can be a difficult company to work for.

The ex-PP employees I talked to said Yeary subscribes to the advance or fire philosophy in business. If someone doesn't advance into a new position within two year, fire them. Personally I think that is the most bone-headed philosophy a company can have. When ever I hear a manager talk about it, I ask them if they change companies if they haven't advanced within two year. Shockingly, they don't.

This is only true about certain jobs - specifically, high turn over jobs. My experience is public accounting - in the public accounting industry, you move up or out. That is because, the turn over is so high you're expected to take the next spot. If you do not progress, they can find another fresh face new hire from a local University who is willing to jump right in and the cost to train/retrain someone is the same price. Although, if working 70 hours a week, lots of travel, and getting pinched by both sides (those you manage vs those who manage you) then this job is perfect for you.

Typically in technical positions with low turn over, you'd be expected to maintain your position for several years at a time. Turn over is low, so you're not expected to move up as fast because someone is still in the position. Too many chef's spoil the soup.

What you want is for your staff to grow - expand their understanding of the business/their role. Let them take on additional responsibilities, release responsibilities they have mastered and play more of a back up role. People move up in their careers for all sorts of reasons - connections, a special project, mastery of their day-to-day work load, new certifications, new degrees, seniority, work/life balance, work ethic, etc.

That's been my experience with people management.

boyd wrote:

This is only true about certain jobs - specifically, high turn over jobs. My experience is public accounting - in the public accounting industry, you move up or out. That is because, the turn over is so high you're expected to take the next spot. If you do not progress, they can find another fresh face new hire from a local University who is willing to jump right in and the cost to train/retrain someone is the same price. Although, if working 70 hours a week, lots of travel, and getting pinched by both sides (those you manage vs those who manage you) then this job is perfect for you.

Typically in technical positions with low turn over, you'd be expected to maintain your position for several years at a time. Turn over is low, so you're not expected to move up as fast because someone is still in the position. Too many chef's spoil the soup.

What you want is for your staff to grow - expand their understanding of the business/their role. Let them take on additional responsibilities, release responsibilities they have mastered and play more of a back up role. People move up in their careers for all sorts of reasons - connections, a special project, mastery of their day-to-day work load, new certifications, new degrees, seniority, work/life balance, work ethic, etc.

That's been my experience with people management.

Except I have seen people try to apply it to technical positions. Tying continued employment to advancement can easily cause a Peter Principle incident to happen. Then your have hurt the company double fold by removing a productive employee from one position and putting him into an unproductive position. Even in accounting there is tribal knowledge that can be lost as people are forced out just because they weren't the ones to get the right promotion or it can hinder progress because you don't want to create employees that are too valuable. A friend who is a public accountant was complaining because he was not being allowed to automate certain data input streams because they didn't want him being the only person with knowledge of how it works. They didn't want an indispensable employee.

As for long term PP employees, aren't a lot of the sculptors and artist on contract? And yes Yeary does apply it to technical positions there. One ex-employee mentioned how Yeary fire two of the three casters. The newest one was there long enough he could train the replacements. Problem is he quit a month later. This was several years ago when PP started having massive issues keeping stock and the ex-employee said that was one of the reason why.

@silent25: casters was a bad example on my part, as it is not nearly as technical a position as the mold cutter...
my point was more that the artists, writers, sculptors and painters, while not being exactly indispensable, don't seem to have to worry about keeping their jobs...

cheers
jah

So... New releases, eh?

Actually, in that vein, I just noticed that Brennos is 55$ on PPs web store. Is there something going on with him that makes him that pricey? He doesn't look enormous, enough so to be half again as expensive as Megalith say. Is he that big? I have never seen him in person.

 Wehrkind wrote:
Actually, in that vein, I just noticed that Brennos is 55$ on PPs web store. Is there something going on with him that makes him that pricey? He doesn't look enormous, enough so to be half again as expensive as Megalith say. Is he that big? I have never seen him in person.

He does seem pretty big but I can't find a comparison with another model to confirm. I think it's just a case of Megalith being old, if he came out now he'd be about the same price as Brennos.

Megalith is also really skinny. But yeah, they don't really do price increases so some older models can have comparatively cheap prices grandfathered in.

I would bet Brennos also has more parts. Megalith is actually a pretty simple miniature.

Makes sense. I was just a bit surprised at that 150% price increase, although I suppose Ghetto costs about that much if you count a full priced warpwolf kit as part of his cost.

When comparing to some other companies, PP pricing can be odd. But then you realize its based on the model itself and not its place in the game.

A unit of single piece miniatures is way cheaper than a unit of multi-part models. Idrian Skirmishers are 1 piece models: $44 for a unit of 10. Kossite Woodsmen: 2-3 piece models(IIRC) $55 for a unit of 10.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But then you realize its based on the model itself and not its place in the game.

...Except the prices they charge for PVC is still absurd. I'd agree that most metal stuff follows a coherent curve, but PVC is priced like it's made out of HIPS, or, well, something better than nice board game plastic.

True, there is zero good reason for them to still keep using PVC.

At least they're (very very slowly) moving towards other materials (slowly).

Some new release on their way

Spoiler as big images



These are all three months out, they went on pre-order today on www.waylandgames.co.uk

I only like the Death Wolves but don't play Circle

Still no Grolar. :/

Ooooh. The character jacks look awesome, the Electromancers look cool but my favourite are those Death Wolves. They're awesome.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Still no Grolar. :/

+1 - I know!

It's going to be 2 books old by the time it finally comes out!


And I'm surprised the Glacier King is in line for production, but the Skorne Hydra is not. We saw video footage of it all painted up when the Glacier King was just an image in a computer...

Death Wolves?! WOOOOO!

Been waiting on them a LONG time Not Grolar long, but a long time

That's because Trolls are better than masochistic sand orcs.

I've never understood PP's release patterns though.

A Grolar would be nice, wouldn't it? Wasn't there a painted sample at one point as well?

That Cryx character jack looks like some sort of Decepticon that can turn into a fighter jet.

Not saying that's a bad thing, mind.

Hand of Judgement looks like someone put Liberace in power armour.

Yeah - Menoth always has the goofiest looking jacks. They'd probably be my favorite faction otherwise - as they have some of the coolest looking infantry/warcasters.

Schmapdi wrote:
Yeah - Menoth always has the awesomest looking jacks.

I'm sure this is what you meant. Wouldn't want to have to put you on the wrack. I just cleaned it.