4 ms·

There doesn't need to be a metric for that, it's the manager's job to use their judgement to assess that by building a relationship with the person, seeing how

• nitwit005 10y ago
  That just makes the problem circular. How do you find these managers that are good at judging people? Also, you're clearly laying out metrics: communication ability and timeliness. They're just somewhat generic metrics.
  • darkmighty 10y ago
    It's not exactly circular, since there are many less managers than low level workers, and progressively less people as you go higher. Presumably the people at the top were once successful managers or successful workers. Basically, this promotes a system where metrics are given by how your peers and managers feel about you. Perhaps while our metrics aren't perfectly capable of predicting how good a worker will turn out or judging it's progress, we shouldn't rely too much on them in place of peer judgement. But indeed let's not fool ourselves that coworker judgement is perfect. It needlessly introduces a whole body of biases, unnecessary politics, and social engineering that can be as bad if not worse than a metric-only system, which at least are objective.
  • solidsnack9000 10y ago
    As described here, "communication ability" and "timeliness" are not metrics -- they are just things that someone wants. They are no more a metric than "tastiness". In the absence of a well-defined measurement procedure and the intent to carry it out, one can not really be said to have a metric.