2 ms·
If companies really believe that they are tracking productivity with automated metric collection, then they should tie compensation directly to the metrics. If
by osigurdson 5y ago
If companies really believe that they are tracking productivity with automated metric collection, then they should tie compensation directly to the metrics.
If, on the other hand, they believe that the metrics are only reliable when done in a secretive/clandestine manner then they must, by definition, not correlate very well to actual productivity. If this is the case, the "trackers" have some explaining to do in terms of the actual value that they are adding to the organization.
- sokoloff 5y agoI doubt most people, even the trackers, believe that tracking these automated metrics is high-fidelity enough to be linear with value created. See also Goodheart’s Law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
- osigurdson 5y agoI'm not sure I suggested that the trackers believe there is a linear correlation. Rather that to the extent they believe there is a correlation they should incentivize it by tying it to compensation. Naturally, many metrics can be gamed, but to the extent that can be gamed is also a good indication of the actual value of the metric. For example, a sales person's compensation is typically tied to a metric: the revenue they brought in in a particular quarter. I'd suggest that metric is pretty important and hard to game. Similarly, a CEO's compensation is often tied to EPS, again pretty valuable and hard to game. A factory worker's compensation could be tied to the number of widgets that they create. Tying a software developer's compensation to mouse clicks and keyboard entry for example, is a very gameable and thus low value metric.