This is trite. Just about any way of understanding something is going to create perverse incentives. Keeping the metrics secret has other problems too.

I don't think there is a a good solution. Maybe with radically shortened work hours and less pay disparity, the strives can strive off the job instead.

Um, what? The degree to which a metric is directly tied to incentives absolutely impacts how much that metric will be gamed. It is not trite at all to caution that metrics that are critical to understanding your business should remain as decoupled as possible from incentives. This allows you to maintain the quality of the signals your metrics provide.

This isn't just theory. This is precisely why there are laws that prohibit rewarding people based on how they voted.

So tell me this: how is the degree to which a given metric is tied to incentives meant to be varied?

> This is precisely why there are laws that prohibit rewarding people based on how they voted.

Voting is not an evaluation method of the voter: the voter is the one doing the evaluating. Because the powers should not discriminate between voters as you say, the vote cannot be used to evaluate the voters on and individual basis at all.

Maybe the answer is that: no individual/team assessments of any sort. That makes no incentives. But that also doesn't help with fine-grained strategy.

> So tell me this: how is the degree to which a given metric is tied to incentives meant to be varied?

...by not tieing incentives to it? I feel like I must not understand your question because this seems blindingly obvious...

> Voting is not an evaluation method of the voter: the voter is the one doing the evaluating. Because the powers should not discriminate between voters as you say, the vote cannot be used to evaluate the voters on and individual basis at all.

I don't even get where you got this strawman from.

> no individual/team assessments of any sort. That makes no incentives. But that also doesn't help with fine-grained strategy.

No, just dont use KPIs that are critical to understanding your business in assessments tied to incentices because that will distort your KPIs and make you less capable of understanding your business.

Actually I'm being silly, there is a good solution: Workplace Democracy. You can fool the higher ups come promotion time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Mondragon please get in the tech biz.

Could you please show some real-world examples of this practice?

I am familiar with tech co-ops, but they are small, and so not good evidence.

Didn't Donal Trump fool a lot of people in a democracy? And how does this have anything to do with metrics?

When there are just a few decision makers, a standard evaluation procedure is usually necessary for fairness / reproducibility.

When there as many evaluators as evaluatees, no standard evaluation procedure is needed on the theory that all the different ways and biases will cancel out. That doesn't work over time, as clearly America's electorate gets interested in different things, but I am less worried about that for co-ops.

The hope for co-ops vs state democracy is two fold.

Firstly, because people do work many hours at their job, but don't necessarily spend any time running the state, I hope they are more informed and engaged.

Secondly, the "both options are bad, I hate this" problem should be addressed by A, proportional representation (just like should be done with state democracy states), but also B of switching jobs. The barrier of switching jobs is much lower than immigrating, which ought to more than any thing else reign in defeatist apathy. And Co-ops can still fire people, remember.

No, he didn't fool us.

yeah right, he didn't fool anyone

/s