Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most HR data is bad data (2015)

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 53 posts

Re: Most HR data is bad data (2015)

#11

Post by willcipriano »

mtlynch wrote: post #6
zachmu wrote: post #3

This is why you need to structure your review process around objectively verifiable info as much as possible. Have clear areas of responsibility for each individual, such that you can readily evaluate what they accomplished and how well it's working. They are responsible for a particular mission and set of objectives, and they either achieve them or they don't. This can't work without individual ownership, which is a…

Structuring the review around objectively verifiable data creates other problems. What if there's a developer on the team who delivers 1/3rd the features as everyone else, but they offer such effective mentorship that their five teammates deliver features 2x faster? If you design your review process around objectively verifiable data, then it's almost certain to undervalue a developer who's great at mentorship becaus…

> who delivers 1/3rd the features as everyone else, but they offer such effective mentorship that their five teammates deliver features 2x faster?

I haven't really encountered this. Generally speaking people who can teach others to be much more productive like that are unsurprisingly themselves, more productive.

This fictional person would be better suited to a people management or coaching role as a individual contractor they only achieve a third of the average.

Re: Most HR data is bad data (2015)

#12

Post by zachmu »

willcipriano wrote: post #11
mtlynch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Structuring the review around objectively verifiable data creates other problems. What if there's a developer on the team who delivers 1/3rd the features as everyone else, but they offer such effective mentorship that their five teammates deliver features 2x faster? If you design your review process around objectively verifiable data, then it's almost certain to undervalue a developer who's great at mentorship becaus…

> who delivers 1/3rd the features as everyone else, but they offer such effective mentorship that their five teammates deliver features 2x faster? I haven't really encountered this. Generally speaking people who can teach others to be much more productive like that are unsurprisingly themselves, more productive. This fictional person would be better suited to a people management or coaching role as a individual contr…

Sometimes you get the cranky old guy archetype who doesn't really get much done but is really good at making sure the kids don't make any really dumb mistakes, which is its own kind of value

Re: Most HR data is bad data (2015)

#13

Post by neilv »

How about minimize how much anyone gets rated, and try to hire for, and structure incentives for, people motivated by:

* success of the company,

* success/happiness of the team, and

* societally beneficial service

(I assume this works best if your company also genuinely has those values. But if it does, no sense using the disproven methodology of sociopathic companies.)

Re: Most HR data is bad data (2015)

#14

Post by tanjtanjtanj »

willcipriano wrote: post #11
mtlynch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Structuring the review around objectively verifiable data creates other problems. What if there's a developer on the team who delivers 1/3rd the features as everyone else, but they offer such effective mentorship that their five teammates deliver features 2x faster? If you design your review process around objectively verifiable data, then it's almost certain to undervalue a developer who's great at mentorship becaus…

> who delivers 1/3rd the features as everyone else, but they offer such effective mentorship that their five teammates deliver features 2x faster? I haven't really encountered this. Generally speaking people who can teach others to be much more productive like that are unsurprisingly themselves, more productive. This fictional person would be better suited to a people management or coaching role as a individual contr…

Every team I've ever worked with (11) has had at least one person that would meet this archetype. Their team-based contribution usually wilts under the kind of individualized metrics being pushed for by some here and the team suffers as a result even if their own metrics get better.

Re: Most HR data is bad data (2015)

#15

Post by vi_jedi »

This needs a (2015). In the 9 years since this was written I haven't seen that many attempts to do something different and these ideas are entrenched. Even newer companies that have the opportunity to do be different tend to fall back on these approaches once they hit the size that people management becomes a role.

My own experience has been that performance reviews really just end up being alignment reviews, which is it's own sort of useful. I think this is possibly the most accurate signal one can expect out of these processes.

Re: Most HR data is bad data (2015)

#16

Post by vundercind »

throwway120385 wrote: post #5

The author seems keenly unaware that all of this fake rigor in HR exists primarily so the company can say they have a process that is objective. This is not the same thing as actually having a process that's objective. More to the point, objectivity may not actually matter much because so much of how a team performs is down to how individuals within the team gel, and you can't train someone into having a personality…

My experience has been that some variant of this is at play in all “data-driven” business, not just in HR. You can play spot-the-fatally-flawed-data/analysis all day long—but nobody cares, accuracy isn’t the point at all. It’s entirely a political tool.

Re: Most HR data is bad data (2015)

#17

Post by AdrianB1 »

zachmu wrote: post #10
mtlynch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Structuring the review around objectively verifiable data creates other problems. What if there's a developer on the team who delivers 1/3rd the features as everyone else, but they offer such effective mentorship that their five teammates deliver features 2x faster? If you design your review process around objectively verifiable data, then it's almost certain to undervalue a developer who's great at mentorship becaus…

People making lots of soft contributions like mentorship / leadership tend to be the kind of well-liked personable sorts who do well on non-objective assessments, which always manage to color evaluations even when you try to make them as objective as possible.

Not in my experience. I worked in 2 occasions with some older people (~ 65) that were the guru of their departments, very respected and listened. While people learned a lot from these 2 people, they were not too agreeable, but quite grumpy, I could say. That limited their careers, even if they were by far the best experts in their departments and overall the most valuable contributors, they were never considered for promotions.

On the other side, most well-liked people I met were professionally superficial at best, masters of talking and networking, but not delivering much at the end of the day. They were promoted first, so that the entire organization was full of these people promoting similar ones.

Re: Most HR data is bad data (2015)

#18

Post by AdrianB1 »

neilv wrote: post #13

How about minimize how much anyone gets rated, and try to hire for, and structure incentives for, people motivated by: * success of the company, * success/happiness of the team, and * societally beneficial service (I assume this works best if your company also genuinely has those values. But if it does, no sense using the disproven methodology of sociopathic companies.)

If engineers are motivated by the success of the company, you get a Boeing situation, where company is doing well and planes are bad. Happiness of the team ... the guy bringing tequila shots and cupcakes to the office will be rated the best (we had a colleague that was baking cupcakes weekly, very popular, but not contributing otherwise to the company's success). Societal service? All companies are doing it, in some way or another, otherwise they would not have any clients and would close.

Re: Most HR data is bad data (2015)

#19

Post by numbsafari »

throwway120385 wrote: post #5

The author seems keenly unaware that all of this fake rigor in HR exists primarily so the company can say they have a process that is objective. This is not the same thing as actually having a process that's objective. More to the point, objectivity may not actually matter much because so much of how a team performs is down to how individuals within the team gel, and you can't train someone into having a personality…

Someone I know quite well works in aerospace. The team they were on was identified as outperforming all the other similar teams. Rather than making all the other teams more like that team, they broke up the team and spread its members around like some kind of FTE pixie dust.

Most of that team left the org within the next 24 months, and none of the teams they joined got better. Some got worse.

Applying the “promote your best IC to be a manager” mindset applies to teams as well, and it’s a damn shame, because in both cases it usually results in the opposite of what anybody desires.

Re: Most HR data is bad data (2015)

#20

Post by [deleted] »

throwway120385 wrote: post #5

The author seems keenly unaware that all of this fake rigor in HR exists primarily so the company can say they have a process that is objective. This is not the same thing as actually having a process that's objective. More to the point, objectivity may not actually matter much because so much of how a team performs is down to how individuals within the team gel, and you can't train someone into having a personality…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN