4 ms·

I think the entire field/practice of "Performance Management" as it stands today needs to be thrown out and reinvented from ground-up by Behavioural Psychologis

I think the entire field/practice of "Performance Management" as it stands today needs to be thrown out and reinvented from ground-up by Behavioural Psychologists/Biologists on a proper scientific base. The current practice is basically ad-hoc management with some so-called scientific methods/metrics thrown in based on the current fad. As an example; here is a long list of Cognitive Biases from wikipedia to ponder over - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

mlrtime 3y ago
Think of "Performance Management" like Capatalism , nobody likes it but it's the "best" that we have found [for sufficiently large orgs]" I'm sure you could think of a hypothetical system that is better than what we have. But there are probably good reasons why they haven't been used and I doubt worker fairness is one of them. This is a hard problem to solve.
- rramadass 3y ago
  I disagree because we are not doing it based on the Science we already know now; we can do much better. From behavioural psychology/social biology/game theory(Prisoner's dilemma) etc. we know Humans naturally have a in-group vs. out-group social structure. Within a group, cooperation with trust and fairness rules and competition is generally absent or if it exists is playful. The research by Frans de Waal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal) on Primate Social Behaviour (Cooperation/Fairness/Empathy/Reciprocity/etc.) is path-breaking. Here is one of his excellent must-watch Ted talks - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk Machiavellian competition comes in only for "status"/"reward" within a group and is not the norm. Competition is more prevalent between groups. Thus if you look at a person in a organizational hierarchy, there are three immediate groups; a) the people you report to (out group), b) your peers (in group, cooperation predominating, with maybe a little bit of playful competition), c) the people that report to you (in group, cooperation but with trust/fairness predominating). For everybody else we don't know and hence almost always respond with tit-for-tat principle. Finally there is also a need to understand what drives self-motivation. This is the natural order for Social Homo Sapiens as we understand from current knowledge. But none of this is being considered when measuring Performance/Productivity. For example, all Leaders/Managers almost always place Trust above everything else, Peers emphasize Fairness and the Managed Underlings emphasize Empathy. So while i may accept my manager "grading" me however begrudgingly provided it is "Fair", i will resent the same done by my immediate peers and underlings. One way to do this properly would be; a) Everybody does a self-appraisal and gives it to their Manager b) The Manager does his job properly by closely monitoring throughout the year and makes his independent appraisal c) Both are submitted to a panel consisting of Managers (one of whom is my immediate Manager with one vote) who don't know the appraisee and finally d) The panel discusses the appraisals with the appraisee in a private interview-like setting. This takes care of the needed Objectivism, Self-Interest, Fairness all together. PS: Resources for further study can be found in my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39086359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39086359

mlrtime 3y ago

Think of "Performance Management" like Capatalism , nobody likes it but it's the "best" that we have found [for sufficiently large orgs]" I'm sure you could think of a hypothetical system that is better than what we have. But there are probably good reasons why they haven't been used and I doubt worker fairness is one of them. This is a hard problem to solve.

rramadass 3y ago
I disagree because we are not doing it based on the Science we already know now; we can do much better. From behavioural psychology/social biology/game theory(Prisoner's dilemma) etc. we know Humans naturally have a in-group vs. out-group social structure. Within a group, cooperation with trust and fairness rules and competition is generally absent or if it exists is playful. The research by Frans de Waal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal) on Primate Social Behaviour (Cooperation/Fairness/Empathy/Reciprocity/etc.) is path-breaking. Here is one of his excellent must-watch Ted talks - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk Machiavellian competition comes in only for "status"/"reward" within a group and is not the norm. Competition is more prevalent between groups. Thus if you look at a person in a organizational hierarchy, there are three immediate groups; a) the people you report to (out group), b) your peers (in group, cooperation predominating, with maybe a little bit of playful competition), c) the people that report to you (in group, cooperation but with trust/fairness predominating). For everybody else we don't know and hence almost always respond with tit-for-tat principle. Finally there is also a need to understand what drives self-motivation. This is the natural order for Social Homo Sapiens as we understand from current knowledge. But none of this is being considered when measuring Performance/Productivity. For example, all Leaders/Managers almost always place Trust above everything else, Peers emphasize Fairness and the Managed Underlings emphasize Empathy. So while i may accept my manager "grading" me however begrudgingly provided it is "Fair", i will resent the same done by my immediate peers and underlings. One way to do this properly would be; a) Everybody does a self-appraisal and gives it to their Manager b) The Manager does his job properly by closely monitoring throughout the year and makes his independent appraisal c) Both are submitted to a panel consisting of Managers (one of whom is my immediate Manager with one vote) who don't know the appraisee and finally d) The panel discusses the appraisals with the appraisee in a private interview-like setting. This takes care of the needed Objectivism, Self-Interest, Fairness all together. PS: Resources for further study can be found in my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39086359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39086359