4 ms·
Is there any reason to think that people are worse at gaming qualitative evaluations than they are at metrics, in general? Things like making friends with one'
by Symmetry 8y ago
Is there any reason to think that people are worse at gaming qualitative evaluations than they are at metrics, in general? Things like making friends with one's boss, appearing to work hard, and so forth.
- js8 8y agoThe people who are gaming are probably not. However, the people who are not trying to game the system might decide to do it if there is an objective goal. But perhaps you're right. In capitalism, the most common purpose why companies exist is to game the system (i.e. make profit). I don't see why in that case, employees shouldn't try to game the people who game them (i.e. capitalists). However, in companies that are collectively owned, this becomes less clear.
- SkyBelow 8y ago>However, in companies that are collectively owned, this becomes less clear. Unless it has no management there is still a management class with disproportionate decision making power and thus the antagonistic relationship necessary for there ti be a clear case for gaming continues to exist. Humans are really bad at removing hierarchies, to the extent that I would assume any place without hierarchies has them in a harder to notice format.
- commandlinefan 8y agoNo, but performance metrics actively damage the work of the people who aren't gaming the system. If you can't make things better, you can at least not make them worse.