3 ms·

"Above all we become interesting [sic] in measuring ourselves. Word count/day, lines of code/day, hamburgers served/hour, steps taken/day, test questions/100, m

by hliyan 12y ago

"Above all we become interesting [sic] in measuring ourselves. Word count/day, lines of code/day, hamburgers served/hour, steps taken/day, test questions/100, money earned/field’s average salary. We got quarterly reviews, job evaluations, and tested certifications." I've a dilemma: I've come to believe that this really is a bad thing, not just because we're suboptimizing output at the expense of quality of life, but also because you get what you measure: you can totally get more LOC/day without actually getting anything useful. BUT, what's the alternative? People need to be rewarded for output; different individuals' outputs are different; still, should we reward them the same? Or should we make it dependent on output (therefore, reward merit, not need)? If so, should the measure be subjective or objective? Can you make it objective without turning it into what the author is talking about? Can you make it subjective while keeping it fair? No matter how much I try, when I try to be fair in rewards/compensation, I find metrics raising their ugly head.

calinet6 12y ago
Just remove the individual metric. We know they don't work. Incentivize the entire company for the success of the company. Pay people fairly in an uncomplicated way. Align all the incentives and don't reward anything that is not directly connected to the clear and well-communicated success of the company.
- nindalf 12y ago
  So even if I do the bare minimum at work, I should be rewarded the same as someone who worked his pants off? Sure, that's fine. Just one thing, that guy who was working his pants off no longer has the incentive to work hard because his reward is tied to how the company as a whole does. He will begin to do the bare minimum, and the company suffers. He will eventually become jaded with this and leave to some place that will recognise and reward his extra output.
  - calinet6 12y ago
    It turns out what you say is not true in reality, but it persists as the myth of individualism in the corporate workforce. It is simply false; it doesn't happen. When you align the incentives, uncomplicate rewards, clearly guide people in the same direction toward clear and logical goals, and enable them to do good work they can be proud of, all of that individual infighting and politics goes away. You can still compensate people fairly for their contributions as measured simply and clearly as "contribution to the success of the company," there's absolutely no reason not to; you just remove the complex measurement and competition that results in the opposite of the desired goal. Simplify. This is well-understood stuff. It is not new. It resulted quite directly in the success of the Japanese economy after WWII, driven by the teachings of statistician W. Edwards Deming. We, as Americans, ignore it because of the persistence of myths like the one you mention. Because of our fixation on individual gain and protection, and on a pervasive belief in the incompetence and dishonesty of our fellow man. We fail to see the truth: that the failures around us are a result not of poor individuals, but of systems which surround them and stop anyone except a few unicorns from being able to be effective. Start with W. Edwards Deming: here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming and here: http://blog.deming.org/ http://blog.deming.org/

by hliyan 12y ago

calinet6 12y ago

Just remove the individual metric. We know they don't work. Incentivize the entire company for the success of the company. Pay people fairly in an uncomplicated way. Align all the incentives and don't reward anything that is not directly connected to the clear and well-communicated success of the company.

nindalf 12y ago
So even if I do the bare minimum at work, I should be rewarded the same as someone who worked his pants off? Sure, that's fine. Just one thing, that guy who was working his pants off no longer has the incentive to work hard because his reward is tied to how the company as a whole does. He will begin to do the bare minimum, and the company suffers. He will eventually become jaded with this and leave to some place that will recognise and reward his extra output.
- calinet6 12y ago
  It turns out what you say is not true in reality, but it persists as the myth of individualism in the corporate workforce. It is simply false; it doesn't happen. When you align the incentives, uncomplicate rewards, clearly guide people in the same direction toward clear and logical goals, and enable them to do good work they can be proud of, all of that individual infighting and politics goes away. You can still compensate people fairly for their contributions as measured simply and clearly as "contribution to the success of the company," there's absolutely no reason not to; you just remove the complex measurement and competition that results in the opposite of the desired goal. Simplify. This is well-understood stuff. It is not new. It resulted quite directly in the success of the Japanese economy after WWII, driven by the teachings of statistician W. Edwards Deming. We, as Americans, ignore it because of the persistence of myths like the one you mention. Because of our fixation on individual gain and protection, and on a pervasive belief in the incompetence and dishonesty of our fellow man. We fail to see the truth: that the failures around us are a result not of poor individuals, but of systems which surround them and stop anyone except a few unicorns from being able to be effective. Start with W. Edwards Deming: here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming and here: http://blog.deming.org/ http://blog.deming.org/