For me this is particularly maddening as I run into it frequently. Managers/bureaucrats want to make decisions based on 'metrics', primarily because it gives them cover if it happens to be the wrong decision. But, many many issues where decisions are required are more subjective than objective. Meaning there really aren't any metrics that can reliably 'measure' them. Instead of just acknowledging this plain and simple fact, they just create more metrics and/or define the criteria with even more detail. It just makes more work but adds no further insight because ultimately, the issue is subjective and no volume of measurements will help. Think about coming up with a formula about how 'good' art is by measuring how many colors it has, how many curves, right angles, etc. It just doesn't work that way and but they keep trying.
It's what happens when responsibility is not married with reward, or worse, is punished by those above you. Why take responsibility when all responsibility gets you is fired, scolded, blame, or a bunch of additional work but no accolades, pay raises, promotions, etc?
i.e. central committees of ruling communist parties.
Of course the downsides of such a system are familiar to many.
That might be true, but "making decisions based on metrics" is also the core idea of the meritocracy/technocracy. Rather than claiming that a person has special insight or superior intuition, and should thus control the decision, there's this contemporary (post-Enlightenment?) idea that we could instead systematize decision making and thus avoid or at least reduce cognitive bias, corruption and nepotism.
My word, no, they want to make decisions based on 'metrics' because it validates the 'do or not decision'.
We make hardware based products and have a very real need to model component prices, fluctuations, trade/political risks etc..
Most things are not 'art'. If someone wants metrics on something so fuzzy, put the 'wide error' bars on the estimation.
Better yet - don't even talk about measurements, make it a 'risk assessment' exercise and identify the key issues that go into defining the unknown.
Ontario government is spending a huge amount of money doing 'environmental assessment' for high speed rail - it's better to do that than to start building and hope they don't come across some 'magical wetland' etc.
Granted - they are spending too much money on the assessment ...
I think one example is when trying to measure, or more likely, rank, people for suitability for something. This can be more of an art. There are metrics that can be useful, but then Goodhart's Law [1] can kick in. And even when the metrics are useful, they simply can't account for, and will never be able to account for, the shear complexity and adaptability of actual people.
So yes, metrics can be good for some thing, risk assessment good for others, but that still leaves some problems on the table for which neither are sufficient.
[1] https://www.formpl.us/blog/goodharts-law#:~:text=Goodhart's%....
They're still objective, it's still objectively wrong to order your employees into a battle royale to the death or paint everything they can find teal as a response to pretty much any problem even when the$e are multiple right answers with a human component. It's just that measuring can cost more than the benefit the task brings, and change what is being measured to destroy anyvalue produced.
The key above is 'all'. There are many, a majority even, of problems for which data gathering and analysis is absolutely the best the approach. These would be the objective problems. Not all problems fall into this category.
Reality exists. There are objective answers to management problems. There may not be a unique right answer, and which answers are objectively correct depends on the people involved far more than any oversimplified metric, but that does not make them subjective. It's objectively true that in any long term problem with difficult to measure outcomes giving people agency, allowing them to own their work, respecting them, and communicating in whichever way is appropriate to the particular situation is more effective than trying to treat them like a pocket calculator and maximizing some kpi that isn't even related to the output you want.
The term you are searching for is solvable by an algorithm or measurable, which they are objectively not. I'm fond of Goodheart's law as a rule of thumb as well as keeping in mind the maxim that any measurement both has a cost and is an interaction with the system being measured and thus must change it.
That is something you believe to be true. And something I believe to not be true. Have you ever managed large teams of developers? I have. For many years. And I was very successful doing it.
However there was no “objective” way for me to manage the teams. Humans are complex. And the interaction of team members even more so. I have never seen an “objective” metric applied to a team that actually worked without unexpected negative consequences and/or without being gamed by smart team members. If you have an example of an objective metric that has actually worked in reality without negative side effects and without being gamed I would like to hear it.
Your real name is subjective (it depends only on what you decide it is)
Your favourite colour is subjective
Whether you like a piece of art, think it's good or think it achieved what was intend€d is subjective
The meaning of a piece of art is objective but not reducible to a metric and maybe not unique.
This assertion that things are objective if and only if simple models based on overly reductive metrics are the only correct tool for thinking about them is incredibly wrong and destructive.
There are actions that lead to the things you want (whether profit, or a project, or a team that feels fulfilled, a sane and safe working environment, etc) being done, and actions that do not. Sometimes which are which are unknown or even unknowable ahead of time or the only known thing is that attempting to instrument humans and treat them as machines will not work. Sometimes they are very particular to the situation. But once your actions have an explicit goal then strategies for achieving that goal are objective.
That’s quite a claim. Can you give me an example of an objective measurement that isn’t a metric?
None of these things can be reliably turned into a metric that you can measure day by day without one or several highly fallible layers of abstraction. Any model complex enough to capture all the nuances such that you can blindly follow its output can just be called a manager.
Not only that, even if your team was successful in the past, that doesn’t mean that doing what worked in the past will also make your team successful in the future. The context is important. And the context is always different when you start the next project. It might be a different customer, a different problem, a different team (people leaving/joining), a different world (politics/laws) etc.
So what you are left with is your experience, your people skills, and your ability to adapt to new situations. I believe that no “objective” tool will help with that. But I would be happy to be wrong.
So let me ask again: if you know an objective way to improve the likelihood of your team being successful then I would love to hear it. It would be great to have such a tool.
Your problem is you're conflating 'subjective' with 'not instrumentable'. Your name is subjective. You can be in an empty white room and choose it and it will always be correct. So is your favourite colour, or whether you think titanic was good. You can't have a subjective opinion and be wrong (although you can make an assertion about one and learn later that you were confused or that your opinion changed)
Once again, the strategy for achieving your goals once they are picked is objective. If you sit in an empty white room and decide the correct strategy for your software business to succeed in your goal of having a product used by a million people is to fire all your experienced employees, hire apprentice chefs, and instruct them to spend all of their time writing poems by hand you're almost definitely wrong.
The post hoc knowledge is proof that it's objective, not proof that it's reducible in its entirety to a simplified metric.
Metrics are a tool for dealing with some objective problems, so are "your experience, your people skills, and your ability to adapt to new situations". Measurements can also include having a conversation or reviewing someone's work but not trying to reduce it to a small set of numbers.
You need to make some measurements to know if you're in touch with reality, but throwing out everything except some tiny subset of measurements that fit in a policy doc or a kpi outline is just as stupid as making decisions from your white room with no feedback.
This is the almost the very definition of subjective.
However, I do take your point about problems that are objective but that are not measurable or solvable by metrics and algorithms. I would add that to my list of problems for which managers will use the metrics tool, even though it won't and can't work and causing frustration for everyone who is relying on them and/or have to collect the metrics data.
The implication is that the manager is the subject if the object is their interaction with the employee. Thus the answer would be fully internal to the manager if it were subjective.
Of course which answer is correct depends on which problem you are solving. By that metric every problem is subjective.
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.”
Teachers and Administrators are equally as committed to 'keeping their jobs'.
It just so happens that 'teaching' is mostly 'teaching' and all you can do is 'teach' and so long as you have kids in front of you 'it's working'.
The scope of their roles doesn't allow for them to go too far away from 'the mission'.
Administrators are not default committed to the 'org' they're just in a position where their decisions and actions may or may not further the mission.
'Very Bad Teaching' is rare and usually self evident. With administration, it's not so clear.
NASA Engineers are not like teachers, in that, the could be wasting a lot of time and energy. Maybe the risk is worth it in some cases (?) in others, maybe not so much.
FYI - in teaching, the biggest costs are generally the 'teachers'. etc..
Regular Public Schools aren't a good opportunity so much to demonstrate this 'Law'.
A not-quite-independent entity like a Post Office might be. They often fight directly against innovation due to the risk it may create to jobs for rank and file, and don't quite have the same competitive basis as others.
I know it's difficult to understand, but organizing people around large and complex goals is hard, and I wouldn't say that it requires a 'submission of autonomy' ... but it does mean that people's roles become much more narrow and that it's really hard to see every move in the big picture.
The best place to see it is in the military, where people are often thrown in situations with much higher risk etc. where the payoff might not be as much as we'd like ... but if we want to defeat Hitler, that's pretty much the way it's going to be. Soldiers in 'good armies' get to make decisions about the tactical bound in front of them and not much beyond that. No 'big picture' stuff.
Most of corporate America is highly inefficient but it's also not that bad.
Another way to understand it is that inefficiency means underutilization ... but we still show up and have meetings to fill time anyhow. Like some managers could work 25% of the time and do just as well, but their jobs are mostly still important.
It's hard to see that often from a 'single position' - how doing XYZ might seem perfectly obviously in the companies best interest but it may not be able to work that way. Though of course often it is.
Just look at the crypto market and imagine if we all had to use those zany tokens to do things. We couldn't get anything done.
That used to exist back in the 1800's.
Our financial systems are very stable and far more resilient than we recognize. We take that for granted.
When is the last time depositors arbitrarily lost a pile of cash while not investing in risky things?
That's a 'new financial innovation' largely enabled by laws and oversight etc. that your great-great grandparents didn't have the luxury of having.
This is historically untrue. When complex societies civil war, they tend to fall apart. (Wars of unification being an exception.) Their citizens’ living conditions permanently fell, often for generations, until an outside power subsumed them.
This trend looks to be strengthening as time goes on, probably on account of increasing species-wide firepower and mobility. Instead, peaceful (if politically violent) “revolutions” reboot the society from time to time. One could argue the Great Depression was the last such restructuring of the American system.
A better argument would be the case that American involvement in WWII resulted in a larger restructuring of American lives.
Women entering the workforce.
The U.S. military fighting racial segregation.
The resultant boomer generation and the rise of labor until 1980.
Lowered income inequality.
The GI bill providing affordable higher-ed to a broad swatch of the populace.
Societies can do "de-sprawling" of rules, but it isn't a frequent thing (the German civil code is kind of a reduction of lots of several codes into one, for example).
There is probably also an element of aging societies becoming more risk averse, hence more rules and regulations.
Edit: And WW2 saw another massive increase of the "state", so not sure war does generally shrink administrative systems.
As a winner, though, you face the task of trying to shrink an administrative system that just won a war.
They had a very small-scale civil war which made them rethink their political structure.
Or the Austrian empire in 1866, which lost a major war against Prussia and was forced to reform itself into a dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Which was somewhat more competitive and liberal than its predecessor and if it avoided other wars, it might in some form survive until today.
(*) a quick read of a wikipedia article about the Japanese economic miracle - which undoubtedly you'll consider leftist propaganda - certainly confirms this. At best relaxing anti-monopoly laws was an example of legislation reform that helped further boost the already impressive recovery that had occurred during the 50s.
FWIW I would actually expect the fact that because the priority at the time was economic recovery before everything else, red tape wasn't allowed to get in the way to the degree it often seems to once prosperity had been restored. I'd even say that's probably a reasonable trade off, though it certainly doesn't justify governments letting growing businesses get away with whatever they feel like. Nobody likes bureaucracy or red tape, but almost always it's what we end up with as a result of repeated cases of corporate behaviour that's widely agreed to be unacceptable.
Leftists always mis-attribute the causes of prosperity. The wikipedia article cites causes that are commonplace in other countries that had no miracle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle
Leftist economies have never experienced an economic miracle in any country.
East Germany, for example (compared with West Germany).
But you haven't made any sort of case that the German or Japanese "miracles" were largely due to raw unrestrained capitalism. There are way too many factors that made those particular countries special cases at the time to pinpoint all the primary causes, let alone tease out various secondary factors some of which probably tempered rather than accelerated growth.
Edit: It's fine to make broad claims about free market and growth, but please provide some citations to back up sweeping statements (and also to allow to go deeper into definitions).
Communist economies always wind up facing famine.
Communist China, for example, switched from a communist economy to a free market one. Look at the results. Korea split in two, one communist, one free market. Which one prospered? East vs West Germany, same story.
The US tried central economic planning for gasoline in the 1970's (repealed by Reagan as his first EO). Disaster. The US tried central economic planning for airline routes, fares, and schedules up until Reagan ended that. The result was a huge increase in efficiency and low fares.
However if the present legislative burden is excessively oppressive, a war, revolution, or reconstitution might address same.
Your argument is a non sequitur.
In the case of World War II, numerous governments were created from whole cloth following the war, amongst conquored territories, in newly-created states, and even amongst some of the winners.
Notably, Japan had a constitution imposed on it by the United States, which largely exists to the present day. Some traditional institutions were preserved (e.g., the emperor), but in almost entirely symbolic form. Germany likewise was reconstituted under a new government, as was Italy. Even France saw a new government formed (the Fifth Republic) in 1958. The states of the Eastern bloc were reconstituted under Communist rule as Soviet satellites. India, Indonesia, the Phillipines, and several Arabic states received independence. The state of Israel was formed. Much of Africa decolonised in the 1950s and 1960s.
There was of course some continuity through all of this, but in large part, new governments emerged and old laws were often voided.
Isn't the question not that laws etc. change but if there is true reduction of the total?
I started a company for a small project on Tuesday. It took me 30 minutes and I never left my chair.
Hire some employees, spread them across multiple states, find out the complexities of employment law in multiple states.
Start up a health plan, same thing.
There a million examples, none of them are bad by themselves, but every aspect of a multi employee business has rules and regulations that if you run afoul of, there are consequences. No one gives you a manual of these, you find them out along the way and it costs you money and time.
That’s life. It’s full of annoyances. Our forebearers had a lot more.
Paradoxically, starting your own business in the 'old time' way, i.e. plumbing or roofing contractors ... it's like guaranteed work for great income. Plumbers are the new Dentists.
That said, there are areas in which regulatory issues are obviously a problem.
This talk of 'war' is hyperbolic.
First thing as a counterpoint that comes to mind is biological complexity. There are marginal diminishing returns to complexity in biology as well, but not a rise / collapse rhythm in biological complexity outside of external events that I know of.
Notably, Herbert Simon spanned multiple domains (economics, psychology, sociology, organisational behaviour, AI, mathematics, ...), though comes off somewhat poorly in the text.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/complex-organizations-a-criti...
On Tainter, he specifically assesses eleven factors: resource depletion, new resources, catastrophes, insufficient response to circumstances, other complex societies (e.g., warfare/invasion), intruders, conflict / contradictions / mismanagement, social dysfunction, mystical factors, chance concatenation of events, and economic explanations.
Chapters 4 & 5 specifically address marginal productivity. They are titled "Understanding collapse: th emarginal productivity of sociopolitical change" and "Evaluation: compelxity and marginal returns in collapsing societies".
Yes, declining marginal returns to complexity is Tainter's principle thesis.
So Karl Marx and Max Weber are just chopped liver?
Helloooo paperwork reduction act
https://www.ffiec.gov/pdf/2017_FFIEC_EGRPRA_Joint-Report_to_...
I actually had a startup project the I shelved specifically aimed at addressing this. Wonder if I should revisit it...
Hello, Agile.
-Oscar Wilde
> “Rules and regulations are immortal. They don’t die … there’s not really an effective garbage collection system for removing rules and regulations.” Piling rules upon rules instead gradually “hardens the arteries of civilisation, where you are able to do less and less”.
Regarding the sentence "One that he doesn’t discuss much but that is particularly pertinent to today, is the accretion of laws and regulations." which appears in the review: I think all these laws and regulations can be regarded as being part of the increasing bureaucracy that Tainter identifies as the cause of eventual collapse of complex societies.
One thing I would add, in addition to the diminishing marginal return of bureaucracy that Tainter mentions, is the tendency of contemporary administrations to create more bureaucracy even when their own stated goal is to reduce bureaucracy or increase efficiency, for example by trying to collect and compare precise numbers that show how they have become more efficient at a task that is in essence not really quantifiable. A related book I recommend particularly in that regard is Le Règne de la Quantité et les Signes des Temps by René Guénon.