4 ms·
> The better managers translated the quantitative metrics into qualitative guidance for their teams. The worse managers provided no such buffer and instead made
by rattray 10y ago
> The better managers translated the quantitative metrics into qualitative guidance for their teams. The worse managers provided no such buffer and instead made their teams achieve metrics by any means necessary.
This seems like a key insight.
Metrics are key to good management – but metrics are for the managers, not for the teams. Managers that pass metrics directly down to their teams as goals aren't doing their jobs; they're trying to make their team do their job.
Maybe. Thoughts?
- codys 10y ago> Metrics are key to good management This doesn't follow from the GP's comment. All we know from that comment is that Metrics + some managers = bad.
- sqeaky 10y agoParachutes are key to survival when jumping from airplanes. Doesn't mean they always work or are always used correctly. Maybe this is a matter of necessary but not sufficient? I have no strong opinion, I am just pointing at a grey area.
- willhslade 10y agoGuys, this one is self aware!
- sevensor 10y agoAgreed. What I left out is that being a good manager can be really hard. If this quarter, the metric is scrap, and you've already exceeded your scrap budget, you have to be willing to tell your people to scrap bad material anyway. You have to do that, knowing that you're going to get raked over the coals in the managers' meeting. Knowing that it's going to count against you at review time. Knowing that the people you manage mostly don't understand that you're all that stands between them and the torrent of abuse. Middle management is a hard job.
- hobs 10y agoI sense a "its hard but its good" theme in this post, and frankly, I disagree. Making middle managers accountable for the failure of executives to manage their company, effectively just insulates those people who made decisions from those who know they are terrible decisions. I was a middle manager who had to do this very thing, and even though my company was happy due to making gobs of money, every review I had was terrible because I wasn't hitting the metric of the month (that generally ended in horrible burn out and hiring even more replaceable people) and I was constantly warned that "You wont bonus this month." I never got a bonus while I worked there, and yet was highly respected and valued by all my employees. When I left the company the other great managers followed me, and the business folded, having hundreds of people lose their jobs. So tell me, why would anyone want this or claim that this type of decision making is "good management"? Why setup a system that punishes those that help the business and deliver actual value to customers instead of meaningless metrics?