monitoring performance to death

I love statements that have the word “fact!” With an exclamation mark. It’s like “And THAT’S science, bitch!”. All sassy like. This piece, from the improbably but literally named incognitoinrome, contains actual science AND fact.

Becoming Better

In economics opting for the middle ground is usually best. But in this case, the extremes seem to be a better choice: monitor hard, or do not monitor at all. A little bit of monitoring only annoys the good workers, causing them to slacken off. And sometimes the wisest thing is just to let people get on with their job.

So says this week’s Economist, reporting on research that has just come out in which volunteers were given a task to do under various degrees of supervision. The unsupervised group performed well, on time, with few mistakes. The extremely supervised group was more careful, more accurate, and slower. The slightly supervised group made the most mistakes of all and was also slower. “This means that resources devoted to monitoring were wasted.”

Great paradox. If you pay someone to work for you, you want to know that they are doing…

View original post 223 more words

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s