> In the vast majority of cases, you can iterate your way to a fair system with a clear rubric that controls for unconscious biases and establishes a substantia

> In the vast majority of cases, you can iterate your way to a fair system with a clear rubric that controls for unconscious biases and establishes a substantial trail of evidence to support each judgement of performance. Actually doing that, especially when giving criticism, tends to be a matter of managerial skill. I'm not sure this is true. A system with a clear rubric that will control for unconscious bias will be accused of reducing people to pure numbers and not consider factors that cannot be quantified. It's also entirely possible that the rubric may control for unconscious bias on the part of the manager, but introduce a whole new set of biases against one group or another. This isn't to say we should make the effort. I actually feel that your point about managerial skill is perhaps the most important. Middle managers, the ones to whom ranking and performance evaluation fall, are often promoted from lower positions and do not have the background or training to be good managers. I'm not sure how to solve this problem, but in most organizations I've worked at this only way up is to management. Good workers turn into bad managers.