My recent entry on measuring a software engineer’s performance led to an interesting comment: but if you rely only on judgement, isn’t that a rec...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
The only way to see the values that individuals bring to the team is to be a part of that team. I think many times disconnected parties (for example, executives) try to substitute metrics here. Instead of trusting the leaders in that team to report the information. But without context and judgement, the metrics are not meaningful. And in fact, the whole idea of routine performance evaluations is suspect here. Why is performance being evaluated? Do we mistrust our management staff? Was there a problem? Was there a huge success? Or are we doing it because we've always done it or business magazines say we should do it? What's wrong with defaulting to paying people market value for the work they do, then dealing with exceptionally good or bad performances as they occur? You know, treating employees like humans, like I want to be treated. :)
Couldn't agree more!
You got me thinking about this question of "do we even need performance evaluations?", and I ended up writing up a new post about it:
Why Do We Have “Performance Evaluations”, Anyway?
Ana Ulin 😻
Couldn't agree more!
You got me thinking about this question of "do we even need performance evaluations?", and I ended up writing up a new post about it: dev.to/anaulin/why-do-we-have-perf...
So true, there's a lot of manipulation in data going on right now.
I've recently read an opinion that maybe one of the issues in the foundations of how we use AI now is the research for the perfect answer, trying to substitute human judgement with the machine's. Instead, the scientist proposed, to embrace fallibility and let the machine, when obviously feasible, output a few possible answers.
The article was this one: We Need an FDA For Algorithms.