5 ms·

HR, just like any other department, is under pressure to perform better. Given the axiom that you can not improve what you can not observe, they are under press

HR, just like any other department, is under pressure to perform better. Given the axiom that you can not improve what you can not observe, they are under pressure to improve their quantifying methods. In itself, it's not bad, but unfortunately we're a very long way from having a meaningful quantification that measures the right things. Ideally, having a dashboard that can show the real, applicable performance of each employee would go a long way to improve the organizational personnel. People just don't want to consider themselves as a resources; they have feelings and emotions, desires and goals. But at the end, some employees are better than others and improving the quality of the workforce is a significant factor in improving the overall performance of a company.

sjg007 10y ago
How about hire smart people, trust them to do the job, and then leave them alone!
- leggomylibro 10y ago
  That would mean fewer HR jobs to go around, presumably.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  Because no one can possibly get better at their jobs? Everyone just wants to hide away and quietly keep doing what they were originally hired for? And feedback has no value in helping people improve? Seriously, I'm baffled by this attitude... yes, I love to hire smart people. And the smartest people? They realize they can learn stuff from other smart people, and that sometimes, those smart people are even their... gasp... managers. Worse, the really smart, driven people may even want to stretch or achieve career goals and don't want to just do the same thing forever! OMG! Frankly, it's the folks who don't understand this that worry me the most. I've worked with my fair share of talent that believes they're the absolute best at everything they do, no one can possibly teach them anything new, and we should all just leave them alone to achieve greatness in solitude. They're a nightmare.
  - quanticle 10y ago
    Everyone just wants to hide away and quietly keep doing what they were originally hired for? And feedback has no value in helping people improve? The problem is that you're assuming that there's a level of honest and integrity in HR reviews that just isn't there. HR reviews are fundamentally deciding about who should be promoted and who should be fired. Giving feedback as to how you can get better at your job is, at best, a secondary concern.
  - sjg007 10y ago
    You're missing the trust piece.
- flyinglizard 10y ago
  That's precisely what I, being considered a star programmer, thought when I was 20. I knew better than anyone, so I wanted to be left alone. I looked down on methods, tools and organizational systems. Over a decade now and being in charge of 20+ smart people now, I understand how without effective personnel and project management, employees are irrelevant. Now, if you get a smart person that's responsible, driven and methodical enough so they can be effective and contribute without being managed, you just make them a manager for other people so they can make them effective. Skilled managers are a force multiplier. Unfortunately technical ("smart") skills are often contradictory to management and people skills, so that person is very much a unicorn (but when you find them, it can transform a dysfunctional organization to a performer). Between having a mediocre managed brilliant group, or a brilliantly managed mediocre group, I know where I'd put my money.
  - sjg007 10y ago
    This is about performance reviews and not about managers. Although you can argue effective management does not require managers. What you missed is autonomy. That's the key. Alignment (join the company), autonomy (trust), effectiveness (facilitate).
    - flyinglizard 10y ago
      Effective management requires managers, it just doesn't say how many managers (just one at the top, or many levels). But someone has to set the tone. Trust is not enough. People need to be guided, synchronized and harmonized. It doesn't happen well in a flat, distributed system. A good employee receives autonomy, a great employee often receives control over other employees. But autonomy is not independence; it still requires a guiding hand, which is management.
      - sjg007 10y ago
        Again, I didn't say anything about managers.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
crispyambulance 10y ago
I understand your intent, but it's really hard to quantify human performance in a complex workplace. It's not just that we're "a very long way from having meaningful quantification". I mean, it is _instrinsically_ a subjective matter. No "dashboard" is going work, IMHO.
- flyinglizard 10y ago
  Performance at work is very strictly an objective matter; it's just that it's hard to measure it right, but the outcomes are obvious and measurable.
  - crispyambulance 10y ago
    How is human performance at work "strictly objective" -- lines of code? number of tickets closed? Customer/peer reviews? Number of unknown disasters averted because of diligence and focus? Number of hapless interns mentored who will, years later, become star players? Unless one is in sales, performance can't be boiled down to a number or two for any individual. Even then, there could be questions.
    - flyinglizard 10y ago
      That's precisely what I claim: that it's very difficult to measure. Yet it doesn't say it's not objective. It's not subjective, as is a matter of taste; it's a matter of fitting the requirements of the mission or organization. Looking at it in other professions, it can be easy to say who's a better mover - they transport more items in a given time, with less property damage. Or better plumbers, or better painters. Or better investment bankers. Or indeed, better salespeople. If it's possible for those professions, it can also apply to IT.
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    If anything, it's exactly the opposite. Performance measurement of developers is an extremely subjective endeavor. One strict objective metric either doesn't exist or is unfeasible to measure. Maybe your point is to say that "performance is objective but performance metrics are subjective" — sure, I agree. But I'm not sure what that adds.

sjg007 10y ago

How about hire smart people, trust them to do the job, and then leave them alone!

leggomylibro 10y ago
That would mean fewer HR jobs to go around, presumably.
zzalpha 10y ago
Because no one can possibly get better at their jobs? Everyone just wants to hide away and quietly keep doing what they were originally hired for? And feedback has no value in helping people improve? Seriously, I'm baffled by this attitude... yes, I love to hire smart people. And the smartest people? They realize they can learn stuff from other smart people, and that sometimes, those smart people are even their... gasp... managers. Worse, the really smart, driven people may even want to stretch or achieve career goals and don't want to just do the same thing forever! OMG! Frankly, it's the folks who don't understand this that worry me the most. I've worked with my fair share of talent that believes they're the absolute best at everything they do, no one can possibly teach them anything new, and we should all just leave them alone to achieve greatness in solitude. They're a nightmare.
- quanticle 10y ago
  Everyone just wants to hide away and quietly keep doing what they were originally hired for? And feedback has no value in helping people improve? The problem is that you're assuming that there's a level of honest and integrity in HR reviews that just isn't there. HR reviews are fundamentally deciding about who should be promoted and who should be fired. Giving feedback as to how you can get better at your job is, at best, a secondary concern.
- sjg007 10y ago
  You're missing the trust piece.
flyinglizard 10y ago
That's precisely what I, being considered a star programmer, thought when I was 20. I knew better than anyone, so I wanted to be left alone. I looked down on methods, tools and organizational systems. Over a decade now and being in charge of 20+ smart people now, I understand how without effective personnel and project management, employees are irrelevant. Now, if you get a smart person that's responsible, driven and methodical enough so they can be effective and contribute without being managed, you just make them a manager for other people so they can make them effective. Skilled managers are a force multiplier. Unfortunately technical ("smart") skills are often contradictory to management and people skills, so that person is very much a unicorn (but when you find them, it can transform a dysfunctional organization to a performer). Between having a mediocre managed brilliant group, or a brilliantly managed mediocre group, I know where I'd put my money.
- sjg007 10y ago
  This is about performance reviews and not about managers. Although you can argue effective management does not require managers. What you missed is autonomy. That's the key. Alignment (join the company), autonomy (trust), effectiveness (facilitate).
  - flyinglizard 10y ago
    Effective management requires managers, it just doesn't say how many managers (just one at the top, or many levels). But someone has to set the tone. Trust is not enough. People need to be guided, synchronized and harmonized. It doesn't happen well in a flat, distributed system. A good employee receives autonomy, a great employee often receives control over other employees. But autonomy is not independence; it still requires a guiding hand, which is management.
    - sjg007 10y ago
      Again, I didn't say anything about managers.
- Spooky23 10y ago

crispyambulance 10y ago

I understand your intent, but it's really hard to quantify human performance in a complex workplace. It's not just that we're "a very long way from having meaningful quantification". I mean, it is _instrinsically_ a subjective matter. No "dashboard" is going work, IMHO.

flyinglizard 10y ago
Performance at work is very strictly an objective matter; it's just that it's hard to measure it right, but the outcomes are obvious and measurable.
- crispyambulance 10y ago
  How is human performance at work "strictly objective" -- lines of code? number of tickets closed? Customer/peer reviews? Number of unknown disasters averted because of diligence and focus? Number of hapless interns mentored who will, years later, become star players? Unless one is in sales, performance can't be boiled down to a number or two for any individual. Even then, there could be questions.
  - flyinglizard 10y ago
    That's precisely what I claim: that it's very difficult to measure. Yet it doesn't say it's not objective. It's not subjective, as is a matter of taste; it's a matter of fitting the requirements of the mission or organization. Looking at it in other professions, it can be easy to say who's a better mover - they transport more items in a given time, with less property damage. Or better plumbers, or better painters. Or better investment bankers. Or indeed, better salespeople. If it's possible for those professions, it can also apply to IT.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  If anything, it's exactly the opposite. Performance measurement of developers is an extremely subjective endeavor. One strict objective metric either doesn't exist or is unfeasible to measure. Maybe your point is to say that "performance is objective but performance metrics are subjective" — sure, I agree. But I'm not sure what that adds.