5 ms·

"By the time you get to groups of eight, these MBAs were claiming nearly 140 percent productivity! " OK but the 80/20 rule suggests a couple of the MBAs are do

by redcalx 11y ago

"By the time you get to groups of eight, these MBAs were claiming nearly 140 percent productivity! " OK but the 80/20 rule suggests a couple of the MBAs are doing most of the work, and the rest are overestimating their useful contribution. It's even possible that the 20%ers are underestimating their contribution, which fits the pattern of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

ilaksh 11y ago
Or maybe a lot of them were worried if they didn't at least _claim_ to have contributed their share, they would ensure themselves a poor grade.
mikekchar 11y ago
I've done some workshops on performance improvement. One of the exercises I do is to ask people to rate, on an absolute scale of 1 to 10, how well they are currently doing their job. 10 means "There is no possible room for improvement". 1 means "Just barely acceptable". I don't ask people to rate themselves as incompetent ;-). If you really think you are incompetent, then you can write 0, though. After they write down the number, I ask them to consider another question. When you retire (as I usually had a young audience, this would be in about 30 years time), at what level will you be doing your job -- again on an absolute scale from 1 to 10? Most people score themselves as a 7 or 8 in the first question. Then in the second question they have nowhere to go. I cruelly ask people if they intend not to improve very much over the next 30 years :-) The problem is that most people do not follow directions. They don't judge themselves on an absolute scale. Their first thought is, "I'm doing well. In fact, I'm good at my job." So they think, "5 is average. A bit over that is 7. Obviously I've got to leave some room for improvement. I'm not perfect, so I'll leave 9 or 10 alone". It's the same lens effect. I am actually asking a different question than they are answering. The interesting bit is that people skim over the internal logic and can often conflate my actual question with the question they answered. Here is an example. Let's say you have 10 years of experience and you have 30 years left before retirement. How much more effective will you be in 30 years from now (as a percentage). By effective, I mean your ability to do your job and influence people so that projects are more successful and your company makes more money. Does it not seem reasonable that with 4 times as much experience you might be twice as effective? Or even more? If you answered "yes", does that mean that you should make half as much money now (or even less!) than someone with 40 rather than 10 years of experience? What about your title? Compared to your 30 year more senior self, how do you rate? If you have "senior" in your title now, what should you have 30 years from now? (maybe "god", I suppose) People conflate the questions, "How well are you performing" , "What is your worth", and "How much do you want to be valued". They answer the last question and assign it to the first two questions. Because people want to be valued, they over estimate their worth and (more critically) become blind to the fact that they can improve. This limits their ability to increase performance.
- qbrass 11y ago
  >Most people score themselves as a 7 or 8 in the first question. Then in the second question they have nowhere to go. I cruelly ask people if they intend not to improve very much over the next 30 years :-) The first question is worded so they assume you mean their current job, and the second one assumes they'll be doing the exact same job in 30 years. The problem is you, not them.

by redcalx 11y ago

ilaksh 11y ago

Or maybe a lot of them were worried if they didn't at least _claim_ to have contributed their share, they would ensure themselves a poor grade.

mikekchar 11y ago

I've done some workshops on performance improvement. One of the exercises I do is to ask people to rate, on an absolute scale of 1 to 10, how well they are currently doing their job. 10 means "There is no possible room for improvement". 1 means "Just barely acceptable". I don't ask people to rate themselves as incompetent ;-). If you really think you are incompetent, then you can write 0, though. After they write down the number, I ask them to consider another question. When you retire (as I usually had a young audience, this would be in about 30 years time), at what level will you be doing your job -- again on an absolute scale from 1 to 10? Most people score themselves as a 7 or 8 in the first question. Then in the second question they have nowhere to go. I cruelly ask people if they intend not to improve very much over the next 30 years :-) The problem is that most people do not follow directions. They don't judge themselves on an absolute scale. Their first thought is, "I'm doing well. In fact, I'm good at my job." So they think, "5 is average. A bit over that is 7. Obviously I've got to leave some room for improvement. I'm not perfect, so I'll leave 9 or 10 alone". It's the same lens effect. I am actually asking a different question than they are answering. The interesting bit is that people skim over the internal logic and can often conflate my actual question with the question they answered. Here is an example. Let's say you have 10 years of experience and you have 30 years left before retirement. How much more effective will you be in 30 years from now (as a percentage). By effective, I mean your ability to do your job and influence people so that projects are more successful and your company makes more money. Does it not seem reasonable that with 4 times as much experience you might be twice as effective? Or even more? If you answered "yes", does that mean that you should make half as much money now (or even less!) than someone with 40 rather than 10 years of experience? What about your title? Compared to your 30 year more senior self, how do you rate? If you have "senior" in your title now, what should you have 30 years from now? (maybe "god", I suppose) People conflate the questions, "How well are you performing" , "What is your worth", and "How much do you want to be valued". They answer the last question and assign it to the first two questions. Because people want to be valued, they over estimate their worth and (more critically) become blind to the fact that they can improve. This limits their ability to increase performance.

qbrass 11y ago
>Most people score themselves as a 7 or 8 in the first question. Then in the second question they have nowhere to go. I cruelly ask people if they intend not to improve very much over the next 30 years :-) The first question is worded so they assume you mean their current job, and the second one assumes they'll be doing the exact same job in 30 years. The problem is you, not them.