Re:The Rise of Workplace Surveillance
by Bartweiss on Monday November 06, 2017 @11:49AM
(#15636729)
> If we ignore that for a moment, the point you are making applies to management too, yet this tech is guaranteed to not be used for management where things and outcomes are left 'more fuzzy'.
I'm not convinced this is true. Management may have been given more leeway on 'soft' outcomes, but there's a longstanding trend of (messy, failed) attempts to quantify that role. Every attempt to incentivize cost-cutting, scale pay inverse to raises given, stack rank between teams, or otherwise measure staff outcomes is in effect a performance metric on management.
It's true that most of those have been immediately eaten by Goodhart's law, and we don't know how to quantify actual success like we do for "widgets per hour". But I wouldn't suggest that a lack of will to do it has been the problem.
(I do think this argument applies to the top of the executive level. I'm fairly convinced that most non-founding CEOs could be replaced at a discount with minimal harm, and only market distortions are preventing that.)
I'm not convinced this is true. Management may have been given more leeway on 'soft' outcomes, but there's a longstanding trend of (messy, failed) attempts to quantify that role. Every attempt to incentivize cost-cutting, scale pay inverse to raises given, stack rank between teams, or otherwise measure staff outcomes is in effect a performance metric on management.
It's true that most of those have been immediately eaten by Goodhart's law, and we don't know how to quantify actual success like we do for "widgets per hour". But I wouldn't suggest that a lack of will to do it has been the problem.
(I do think this argument applies to the top of the executive level. I'm fairly convinced that most non-founding CEOs could be replaced at a discount with minimal harm, and only market distortions are preventing that.)