1. I wouldn't consider working for a boss who regarded me as an enemy. 2. The manager also gets evaluated, and word will get around if he's promoting cronies, and if his dept gets poor results as a consequence. 3. I mentioned that everyone knows who is naughty and who is nice. A rating system can be as simple as "who do the patients prefer" and "which teachers do the parents want for their kids". I expect that would be pretty accurate and pretty hard to game.

Walter nobody wants to work for a boss that considers them an enemy hence why there is so much politics in the workplace. Almost nobody is honest to their boss about what they think of them.

Word might get around about the boss, but when your job is on the line most people tow the line - as the Japanese say the nail that sticks out is the one that is hammered.

The problem with using metrics of what patients and parents think is this is not a good measure of what makes a good doctor or teacher. You can be an incompetent doctor with a fantastic bedside manner or a teacher all the parents relate to but who can't teach a fish to swim. The metric here is not the one you really want optimised.

On this topic I personally prefer doctors who have very poor beside manner because I assume they must have optimised competence over personal relations.

> The problem with using metrics of what patients and parents think is this is not a good measure of what makes a good doctor or teacher.

I think it's natural to assume this is not a good measure. Let's take teachers. I don't believe a teacher can consistently fool parents into believing they've taught the kid a lot when the kid is obviously not learning. And bluntly, the teacher is supposed to be working for the parent. Why shouldn't the parents decide who they want teaching their kids?