4 ms·

Someone gamed a system created to be gamed? :pikachu_face:

bluGill 3y ago
The real failure is the CEO didn't make a system where by gaming it you made things better for the company. This is a hard problem - but CEOs are paid big bucks to solve hard problems like this.
- bonoboTP 3y ago
  There's basically always some kind of monkey's paw shortcut to any formalized metric passed top-down. The converse is that there are also always novel ways to differentiate yourself bottom-up from the mere shortcutters. This is basically how fads form. Something novel appears that is first a great signal for honest quality work, then it gets formalized and imitated and it becomes less predictive, so those who are in the business of creating true value must come up with new ways to demonstrate this.
  - gemstones 3y ago
    This is why you should switch up criteria you give bonuses by on a bi-annual basis. People who game your system only get 6 months of time to enjoy it. You’re left with people who can game every metric or people who are just so good they look good no matter what metric you pick. The first group is hard to deal with, but they would be hard to deal with anyways.
    - bonoboTP 3y ago
      Or you could keep the metrics secret before evaluation. Except secrets are hard to keep and non-transparent. One also has to consider whether the people who define the KPIs are themselves properly incentivized. How are they evaluated? Could there be some perverse incentive to set gameable KPIs that get hit easier? Maybe the KPI setter is in some sense in on the game and complicit? Very complicated stuff. What if the business gets destroyed in the process? Who does that hurt in reality and how much?
  - creer 3y ago
    There's a difference between a shortcut that has the interest of the firm in mind. And sabotage. I'm always surprised how little sabotage is recognized / repressed in corporations. Certainly there is the issue of recognizing the one from the other. But still sabotage seems to be frequent - as part of "empire building", as part of gaming the compensation metrics. And "boys will be boys" is not the a response that steers toward the desired behavior.

The real failure is the CEO didn't make a system where by gaming it you made things better for the company. This is a hard problem - but CEOs are paid big bucks to solve hard problems like this.

bonoboTP 3y ago
There's basically always some kind of monkey's paw shortcut to any formalized metric passed top-down. The converse is that there are also always novel ways to differentiate yourself bottom-up from the mere shortcutters. This is basically how fads form. Something novel appears that is first a great signal for honest quality work, then it gets formalized and imitated and it becomes less predictive, so those who are in the business of creating true value must come up with new ways to demonstrate this.
- gemstones 3y ago
  This is why you should switch up criteria you give bonuses by on a bi-annual basis. People who game your system only get 6 months of time to enjoy it. You’re left with people who can game every metric or people who are just so good they look good no matter what metric you pick. The first group is hard to deal with, but they would be hard to deal with anyways.
  - bonoboTP 3y ago
    Or you could keep the metrics secret before evaluation. Except secrets are hard to keep and non-transparent. One also has to consider whether the people who define the KPIs are themselves properly incentivized. How are they evaluated? Could there be some perverse incentive to set gameable KPIs that get hit easier? Maybe the KPI setter is in some sense in on the game and complicit? Very complicated stuff. What if the business gets destroyed in the process? Who does that hurt in reality and how much?
- creer 3y ago
  There's a difference between a shortcut that has the interest of the firm in mind. And sabotage. I'm always surprised how little sabotage is recognized / repressed in corporations. Certainly there is the issue of recognizing the one from the other. But still sabotage seems to be frequent - as part of "empire building", as part of gaming the compensation metrics. And "boys will be boys" is not the a response that steers toward the desired behavior.