> that’s 100% bad feedback from your reports. If the report doesn’t do well, that’s 100% of your reports that aren’t succeeding. It kind of goes to show, if it

> that’s 100% bad feedback from your reports. If the report doesn’t do well, that’s 100% of your reports that aren’t succeeding. It kind of goes to show, if it's a bad measurement for N=1, just because it's a better measurement for N=7 it may still be meaningless. Your employees are not a science experiment. Another way of looking at it is, if 100% of Mark Zuckerberg's employees, in say 2006-2007, were saying he was a bad manager, if 100% were "not succeeding," would it matter? Another way of looking at it is, while 90% of businesses benefit from an objective look at manager performance, don't you want to work for the 10% where it doesn't matter instead of the 10% where it matters and they actually score well?