4 ms·
You are correct that companies' direct incentive is to optimize their ratings. Don't you think that's correlated with improving actual employee experiences, th
by mushufasa 8y ago
You are correct that companies' direct incentive is to optimize their ratings.
Don't you think that's correlated with improving actual employee experiences, though? I agree they're not the same thing. But if they spend HR effort to improve the ratings, that means they're looking at the feedback, and presumably they will try to address some or part of it where possible.
Essentially, the fact that people optimize metrics doesn't mean that the whole process is hopeless. Anyone who has built metrics systems will agree that you can rarely measure the exact thing you're looking for -- the ideal is to get as close as you can.
- jacques_chester 8y ago> But if they spend HR effort to improve the ratings, that means they're looking at the feedback, and presumably they will try to address some or part of it where possible. No. In any control loop you have two ways of reducing error. One is the arduous business of actuation. Doing things. Soul-searching. Working hard. Investigating. Listening. Making it better. The other is to lie to the sensor. This is always easier. From the controller's POV, it's indistinguishable.
- mushufasa 8y agoDon't both ways happen? Surely you don't see the world as completely black-and-white?
- jacques_chester 8y agoI said it's easier to deceive the sensor. The way you avoid this problem is to avoid creating the incentive to subvert the loop. I am fairly confident that every metric, target, index, goal, KPI or score that has ever been connected to money, power or fame has been subverted. As far as that goes, yes, I see the world as black-and-white. Glassdoor scores are tied to ability to hire. It's easier to game the scores than to not suck, especially since "horrible place to work" is going to correlate strongly with "dubious ethics".