More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
stable pattern:
source of pattern noise.
occasion noise.
As one review summarizes it, “the relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance is likely to be weak or at best uncertain.”
raters might not in fact attempt to evaluate performance accurately but might rate people “strategically.”
quality of the feedback, but system noise remains high and still accounts for much more variance than does the performance of the person being rated.
noise-reduction strategy of aggregation.
360-degree feedback systems
primary purpose is to measure much more than what a boss sees.
The rise in popularity of 360-degree feedback coincided with the generalization of fluid, project-based organizations.
the use of this feedback system has created its own problems.
proliferation of multiple corporate objectives and constraints added dimensions to job descriptions, many feedback questionnaires became absurdly complex.
this overly complicated approach is not only useless but also pernicious.
has exponentially increased the amount of time devoted to providing feedback.
In this case, the reduction of noise may not be worth the cost—
360-degree systems are not immune to a near-universal disease of all performance measurement systems: creeping ratings inflation.
introduce some standardization in ratings.
forced ranking.
forced to abide by a predetermined distribution.
Many companies adopted it, only to abandon it later, citing undesirable side effects on morale and teamwork.
rankings are less noisy than ratings.
approach in panel B has two advantages.
rating all employees on one dimension at a time
structuring a complex judgment into several dimensions.
attempt to limit the halo effect,
ranking reduces both pattern noise and level noise.
rankings mechanically eliminate level noise.
noise reduction is the main stated objective of forced ranking,
same mean and the same distribution of evaluations.
forced ranking
often backfires.
confusion between absolute and relative performance.
expectations have been defined ex ante and in absolute terms.
possible that most employees really do meet high expectations.
The upshot is that a system that depends on relative evaluations is appropriate only if an organization cares about relative performance.
forcing a relative ranking on what purports to measure an absolute level of performance, as many companies do, is illogical.
not just cruel; it is absurd.
something close to a normal distribution.
distribution may not be reproduced in a smaller group,
the composition of teams is not random.
Inevitably, forced ranking in such a setting is a source of error and unfairness.
the fatal flaw of forced ranking is not the
“ranking,” but the “forced.”
choice of the scale mechanically adds noise.
understatement to say that the results have been disappointing.
the cost of performance evaluations skyrocketed.
performance ratings as they are most often practiced demotivate as often as they motivate.
radical option of eliminating evaluation systems altogether.
few have even made their evaluations numberless, which means that they abandon traditional
picking the right scale. The aim is to ensure a common frame of reference.
