|
|
|
|
|
|
by russellbeattie
1414 days ago
|
|
|
I stand corrected about the anonymity of the surveys. I wasn't a manager and I can't say I paid much attention during the meetings. But there are a lot of sub-managers who have just a couple of reports and it can't be particularly hard to figure out. Still, I shouldn't have stated it as fact. I'd edit the post if I could. You didn't confirm or deny that manager performance was tied to those connections data. Care to clarify this? As I said, it was a guess on my part. My manager was actually a great guy and our group was productive. He only got that way after the surveys became a thing and - I'm guessing - his superiors started getting uptight. Heh, I like how you checked up on me, but use amzn-throw for your comment. Comms is watching you Wazowski, always watching. Anyways, I still stand by my general sentiment. |
|
|
Manager performance is not tied to connections data. However, manager's performance is tied to the kind of facets of team cohesion, productivity, satisfaction, and delivery that the Connections data. Does that make sense?
And it's not a terrible proxy. For example, it would be relevant if a manager was measured on their ability to hire and retain people, right? Well, if certain connections questions have a direct correlation with people leaving the team, you can imagine someone would tell the manager "Fix this connections score, or else people will leave the team."
But if they fixed the connection score, but people still left the team, they wouldn't be able to get away with that as a success. The metric is a proxy, not the target.