when i worked in the printing field, each presscrew had 5-6 members. there was the lead man who was in charge of overseeing the entire operation on his particular printing press. the lead man was expected to have leadership skills, and a management mentality. he was expected to someday have the capability of moving up the the next level, which was shift supervisor, overseeing the entire shop for his shift. then there was the next level down, he was expected to someday be able to do the job of the lead man if needed. the remaining crew members were basically laborers. if they were bright enough, and ambitious enough to move up, that was great, if not, that was fine too, they would remain a laborer forever, at a low rate of pay, and no one expected very much from them other than grunt work. which leads me to my question: if you had a member on your mowing crew, that you feel had "reached his platea", in other words he couldn't do any better. his performance is acceptable, not great, and you feel he will never get any better, or faster. however, he is doing ok. now this member doesn't make a whole lot of money, he is satisfied with his low pay, shows up on time, works at a reasonable pace, isn't mouthy, etc. in other words on a scale from one to 10, he's probably a 6.5, and will never get better. but like i said, he's happy with his pay. is it worth it to keep a guy like this? where one guy may make you a $25 an hour profit, this guy probly only drags in $17. if i had 5 guys each making me a PROFIT of $17 an hour, i'd be doing ok. i'd like to have them making me $25-$35, but $17 is better than nothing. is it worth it to keep a guy that performs at the minimal acceptable level, and can not get any better?