Timeline for Employees are gaming their performance metrics, instead of doing what's best for the company
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2018 at 15:57 | comment | added | Acccumulation | @DanK "If something isn't measurable and verifiable then it can't, by definition, be a goal." False. It can be a goal for the employee. In a healthy business culture, employees are motivated to do what's best for the company, even if it can't be verified that they are doing so. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 10:42 | comment | added | Paul Johnson | @DanK Remember the story of the drunkard looking for his keys under a lamp post instead of where he lost them "because the light is better here". Requiring goals to be measurable first and good for the company second is the same mistake. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 3:16 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @DanK It means: don't pick goals that aren't good for the company, just because they are measurable. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 2:36 | comment | added | Matthew Read | "Don't fall in the trap that goals must be measurable and verifiable" is another way of saying "focus on systems, not goals". There are many methods and practices to set a company up for success without knowing precisely what success that will be, with the advantage of not closing yourself off to options outside of the "goal". | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 17:57 | comment | added | Kevin | "It's one of the tasks of management to set goals in such a way that by achieving their goals and getting praise and recognition, employees will also benefit the company." This is absolutely right. Otherwise, you end up with the corporate version of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 16:21 | comment | added | user48276 |
I agreed with your answer up until this line: PS. Don't fall in the trap that goals must be measurable and verifiable. This seems a complete non sequitur and IMO is absolutely wrong. If something isn't measurable and verifiable then it can't, by definition, be a goal. Goals need to be achievable which means they need both of those attributes. The issue here is not goal setting in general.. it's that the company is prioritizing short term goals over long term strategic ones.
|
|
| Apr 9, 2018 at 15:19 | comment | added | Jeutnarg | @EthanKaminski Once you use a metric to determine reward, it ceases to be useful as a metric. I don't believe it's possible to set up KPI's so that they actually measure value to the company. | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 13:44 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | As I'm fond of putting it, bad metrics are worse than no metrics at all. | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 11:28 | comment | added | gazzz0x2z | I work in software testing. Our goals are "test x% of evolutions", which is easy to measure, and "improve overall product quality", which is impossible to measure. Both are strategic for the product, and therefore, the company. The seconf one is very vague, and both are far more a measure of the performance of the team than the individual, which is a good thing in my book. | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 10:47 | history | edited | gnasher729 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 917 characters in body
|
| Apr 9, 2018 at 10:07 | comment | added | Soron | In case 2, it's reasonable to assume that Bob will do whatever reflects best on his KPIs. So then, why are his KPIs set up in a way that doesn't measure value to the company? | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 8:00 | comment | added | Allure | Thanks for the answer. Can you give an example of how goal setting might look? I can't think of - even conceptually - how to set goals that simultaneously emphasize what's best for the company while also retaining an individual character. Presumably one must have some goals (KPIs) at the individual level, otherwise one cannot assess performance objectively, which in turn opens up biases like the gender wage gap. | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 6:20 | history | answered | gnasher729 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |