4 ms·
> One has to talk to peers, subordinates and superiors and do anonymous feedback, in addition to random checks But the article claims you can't trust peer revi
by tqi 2y ago
> One has to talk to peers, subordinates and superiors and do anonymous feedback, in addition to random checks
But the article claims you can't trust peer reviews, and that managers should just "know" what their reports (in this case line managers) are up to / how good they are...
- dennis_jeeves2 2y agoIt's combination of several things, one of them is _talking_ to peers, not some written account ( peer review? ) of what the peers say. This is has to be done by upper management only. If you ran a company that you founded how would you judge a manager? You don't just sit on your ass and hope that someone will tell you about the new manager that was hired. You actively seek information, you grill people, you hold the them high standard of integrity. Also worth repeating: If the upper management is not doing it it can only mean either of these 2 things: 1)They are not interested 2) They are too incompetent to do it.
- tqi 2y agoMy point is literally everything you suggested "upper" management do to evaluate managers are things the article suggests doesn't work when it comes to evaluating individual contributors.