I need to keep this short, because I've been working 12+ hour days and it's almost time for bed.
So here's something to think about.
Where I work, we normally have a way to assess our employees productivity with rates. As someone in a leadership role once said - He loves it. He hates it.
On the one hand, it's nice to have a metric that tells you who is performing well and who is struggling. If you have to fire someone for performance, it's also nice to have something fairly straightforward to justify it.
But then you get people so concerned about their rates that they will fight over petty things. Or people will be so concerned about rates that they will cut corners, and make work harder on everyone else.
While I could tie that in with my own issues/concerns about metrics, I wanted to take this a step further.
The reasons we like having that metric are similar to the reasons why technology gives us a false sense of omniscience, and similar again to why PhDs can find a job more easily. (The metric makes us think we 'know' who is doing well, without necessarily digging deeper...leaving us open to people who know tricks for looking better than they are. PhDs are easier to hire because nobody is ever going to say they are unqualified. They HAVE A PhD!!!) We can be inundated with information that makes us think we know, and yet we sometimes can miss major things because of that. (This article coincidentally touches on that.)
But above and beyond the false sense of security metrics gives, is something I want to dig into when I have more time. Which these days may mean in a month or so. :/
For most of us, we know we can't get the jobs unless we have the qualifications. For exactly the reasons stated above. We have to get the degree, or get the work experience, or what-have-you.
Which is why it is so frustrating, aggravating, mind-numbingly heart wrenching to hear stories like this. Or this.
It implies that the rules are different for some of us. Not because they are better, or more deserving. But simply because they have connections. What are we, a third world country?!? Why would officials alter the records for someone, to make it appear they had a degree when they didn't? If they were talented enough to get that job despite lacking a degree, then the people who hired them should have had the guts to say so. And to help puncture this notion that only people with a degree are qualified. And if they really, really want to insist on the degree then don't hire someone who doesn't meet that qualification.
But the issue isn't necessarily about this particular instance. I don't claim to know whether the individual performed well or not. It's about how the rules differ for some of us. And all the things done to CYA when hiring or promoting (metrics, degrees, etc) can become a barrier for someone who can't afford college, or doesn't have the right experience...and yet are NOT barriers for others.
So here's something to think about.
Where I work, we normally have a way to assess our employees productivity with rates. As someone in a leadership role once said - He loves it. He hates it.
On the one hand, it's nice to have a metric that tells you who is performing well and who is struggling. If you have to fire someone for performance, it's also nice to have something fairly straightforward to justify it.
But then you get people so concerned about their rates that they will fight over petty things. Or people will be so concerned about rates that they will cut corners, and make work harder on everyone else.
While I could tie that in with my own issues/concerns about metrics, I wanted to take this a step further.
The reasons we like having that metric are similar to the reasons why technology gives us a false sense of omniscience, and similar again to why PhDs can find a job more easily. (The metric makes us think we 'know' who is doing well, without necessarily digging deeper...leaving us open to people who know tricks for looking better than they are. PhDs are easier to hire because nobody is ever going to say they are unqualified. They HAVE A PhD!!!) We can be inundated with information that makes us think we know, and yet we sometimes can miss major things because of that. (This article coincidentally touches on that.)
But above and beyond the false sense of security metrics gives, is something I want to dig into when I have more time. Which these days may mean in a month or so. :/
For most of us, we know we can't get the jobs unless we have the qualifications. For exactly the reasons stated above. We have to get the degree, or get the work experience, or what-have-you.
Which is why it is so frustrating, aggravating, mind-numbingly heart wrenching to hear stories like this. Or this.
It implies that the rules are different for some of us. Not because they are better, or more deserving. But simply because they have connections. What are we, a third world country?!? Why would officials alter the records for someone, to make it appear they had a degree when they didn't? If they were talented enough to get that job despite lacking a degree, then the people who hired them should have had the guts to say so. And to help puncture this notion that only people with a degree are qualified. And if they really, really want to insist on the degree then don't hire someone who doesn't meet that qualification.
But the issue isn't necessarily about this particular instance. I don't claim to know whether the individual performed well or not. It's about how the rules differ for some of us. And all the things done to CYA when hiring or promoting (metrics, degrees, etc) can become a barrier for someone who can't afford college, or doesn't have the right experience...and yet are NOT barriers for others.
No comments:
Post a Comment