3 ms·
Well yes but I think it has more to do with the incentives that are placed before people. As an organization gets larger it gets harder to tell who really contr
by darklighter3 17y ago
Well yes but I think it has more to do with the incentives that are placed before people. As an organization gets larger it gets harder to tell who really contributes what. It also gets harder to socially police people who are attempting to game the system. If some people are successful gaming the system others are incentivized to do so as well. It can be easy to label a sub-optimal outcome as bad management but those managers usually aren't dumb. They usually have perfectly rational reasons for the things they do - it's just not what the policy designers had in mind.
- TomOfTTB 17y agoLet me put this another way. Can you think of a system of management that doesn't rely on the judgment of managers? No matter how you slice it corporate America works like this... + Executive Staff gives an assignment to a certain manager. + Manager divides that assignment up and gives it to his team members + Team members complete the assignment + Manager submits the completed assignment back to the Executive Staff Given that scenario there's no way anyone other than the manager can know who accomplished what meaning no matter what system you implement it's always going to come down to the judgment of managers. (which is why hiring good managers that don't try to game the system is so very important)