4 ms·
You're approaching your stated problem wrong. See: > A manager’s job, fundamentally, is to ensure that their reports are delivering appropriate value to the co
by lrem 3y ago
You're approaching your stated problem wrong. See:
> A manager’s job, fundamentally, is to ensure that their reports are delivering appropriate value to the company, so the most direct measure of a manager’s performance is the performance of the ICs that report to them (possibly indirectly).
Now, you're arguing that `sum(evaluate(impact) for each IC)` is absurdly bad. Which it is, because you're compounding errors in individual evaluations. These are hard to do, because you're trying to distribute team's achievements between contributions from particular people. I say that `evaluate(sum(impact for each IC))` is easy and robust. In fact simpler than an evaluation for a single IC, because you don't have to distribute anything and a lot of things that are external distractions for ICs fall into responsibility of managers.
- rat9988 3y agoUsing functions in text just makes it hard to read.
- dopidopHN 3y agoAnd shows a poor command of English.
- konschubert 3y agoIt was the only thing that made me understand his point.
- rat9988 3y agoBecause he wrote the key points in a function instead of properly explained english.
- lrem 3y agoI only tried this meh notation because hn doesn’t do LaTeX.
- kd5bjo 3y ago> Now, you're arguing that `sum(evaluate(impact) for each IC)` is absurdly bad. No, I’m not. I’m arguing that it’s unwise to trust someone to do an evaluation who has a personal stake in the result of that evaluation. Looking at how well a team works together to advance company goals is an important factor in any evaluation system, but using that as the only factor in a manager’s evaluation is as shortsighted as evaluating a software engineer solely on how many LOC they produced. In practice, overall team performance should be a factor in IC evaluations as it’s reflective of various hard-to-quantify contributions of the team members. It should also be a somewhat larger factor in a manager’s evaluation, with the weight between IC and team performance shifting from mostly-IC at the bottom of the hierarchy to mostly-team at the C-suite level.
- konschubert 3y agoI think GPs point is that evaluate(sum(impact of ICs) can be evaluated by the manager of the person-to-be-promoted. My concern with this is: How do you correct for luck/easy tasks? It’s hard to compare the performance of departments unless you have been inside and seen the challenges they’ve been facing.