4 ms·

Is it possible to objectively measure merit? But anyway, promoting people in to new / different roles based on their present performance says little about how

Is it possible to objectively measure merit? But anyway, promoting people in to new / different roles based on their present performance says little about how they will perform in the new / different role. And then there's that concern that, in many cases, the CEO may not make a lot of difference.

drawnwren 8y ago
I think as you move up the responsibility chain, the number of confounding variables becomes so immense that only broad measurements are possible.
watwut 8y ago
I don't think it is possible to objectively measure merit nor accurately guess who will perform well in next role. However, it is possible to be more accurate or less accurate in measuring either. Meaning, it is possible to be better, even if better does not mean perfect. I believe that if we spent more time trying to describe merit, overall work culture would become more fair and we would move closer to meritocracy. It could even lead to more effective workplace as incentives would align more with what is actually needed. Right now, it seems to be pretty random too often and based more on impressions then on anything factual. I have seen multiple times that what was rewarded was not what was needed the most for a project. Or literally people who actually have real results and successfully run project (negotiated requirements/time, made larger estimates, kept it organized, asked for what they needed soon enough, customer happy in the end) talked about as less good then people who run messy projects - because basically messy project seemed to involve heroic effort at times and they had fun war stories. It is like someone up thread said - the upper you go the more it matters who you are friend with and who you drink beer with - it is not an evil conspiracy, just results of people making impressions based decisions instead of through out ones. Reasonable definition of merit would help - to steer toward people who had shown organizational skill previously.

drawnwren 8y ago

I think as you move up the responsibility chain, the number of confounding variables becomes so immense that only broad measurements are possible.

watwut 8y ago

I don't think it is possible to objectively measure merit nor accurately guess who will perform well in next role. However, it is possible to be more accurate or less accurate in measuring either. Meaning, it is possible to be better, even if better does not mean perfect. I believe that if we spent more time trying to describe merit, overall work culture would become more fair and we would move closer to meritocracy. It could even lead to more effective workplace as incentives would align more with what is actually needed. Right now, it seems to be pretty random too often and based more on impressions then on anything factual. I have seen multiple times that what was rewarded was not what was needed the most for a project. Or literally people who actually have real results and successfully run project (negotiated requirements/time, made larger estimates, kept it organized, asked for what they needed soon enough, customer happy in the end) talked about as less good then people who run messy projects - because basically messy project seemed to involve heroic effort at times and they had fun war stories. It is like someone up thread said - the upper you go the more it matters who you are friend with and who you drink beer with - it is not an evil conspiracy, just results of people making impressions based decisions instead of through out ones. Reasonable definition of merit would help - to steer toward people who had shown organizational skill previously.