3 ms·
Isn't the solution to some of these problems to assess the teams results overall? If they are performing as required or expected (i.e. hitting targets) whatever
by oxryly1 10y ago
Isn't the solution to some of these problems to assess the teams results overall? If they are performing as required or expected (i.e. hitting targets) whatever the team metric, then wouldn't that explain rank inflation?
The ranking of people requires either one of two things:
1. fitting your group of people to a bell curve regardless of their proper distribution in reality
2. ranking inflation or deflation
Seems like a broken system designed either to generate make-work for managers and HR or to give the illusion of personnel manipulations to improve performance.
- aetherson 10y agoI thought of that, and it's a seductive answer, but I'm not sure anyone wants it to be done mechanically that way. (If you're just eyeballing things and then having multiple people have input to keep the primary manager honest, then yes, I think that the team's performance should be kept in mind). Like, say your team didn't hit its OKRs. Should that mean that your manager has to make the average of your team's ratings be below 3? Certainly, one reason why your team failed to hit its numbers might be because most or all members of the team are poor performers. But it might also be that your manager didn't organize your work well, or it might have been that your numbers were unrealistic.
- oxryly1 10y agoIf a team didn't perform as necessary and all it's rankings were high, that would be some damn useful information regarding the manager, the teams it interacted with or depended on, and/or the companies goals, deadlines, and methods of setting those.