Comments on: Working on the F.A.R.M.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 12 May 2009 12:33:28 +0000

@ Chris (Butch) and Amy:

Another thought – Chris’s standard distribution of work ethic assumes that all people have landed in their jobs at random, and that that distribution reflects what we would get from a random sample of people. Probably true.

That situation also means that the HR person is the one that should be given the pink slip.

The most important thing to hire is character. The most important thing to guard is corporate culture. The best way to do that is to hire good people.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 12 May 2009 12:23:54 +0000

@Amy: Absolutely right. No system can solve for character flaws, especially a system that relies on stakeholders’ integrity.

The great thing about running small teams is that it quickly becomes apparent who is slacking, and if social obligation and coaching don’t solve the problem, a pink slip will.

By: Amy

Amy — Tue, 12 May 2009 12:15:48 +0000

I agree with Butch… unless there are performances to measure and clear expectations, I can’t see how this could work. There will always be hard working individuals and the slackers, who will always try to do the least work possible but get pay for it.

By: Allie

Allie — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:56:16 +0000

I’m sure it was from a link related to THESIS. Either the forum or a showcase. I’ve been doing a lot of clicking these days and finding some truly amazing like minded people. THESIS people unite!

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:43:04 +0000

@Allie: Thanks! Glad you liked it.

Just curious, how did you find the article?

By: Allie

Allie — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:33:42 +0000

Hey. I LOVE it. Wise words. Will tag this for possible insertion into one of my own posts!

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:03:31 +0000

Probably true. Here’s to hoping that remuneration will eventually follow the same distribution.

By: butch hillhurst

butch hillhurst — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:36:08 +0000

My experience in the private sector and then in schools is…that there are in any organisation 10% of people who are total dogfuckers. They are still there cos they know the boss, people are scared of them, they have a union, they do1 specific function that nobody else can, etc. 80% of people generally put in varying degrees of decent effort and output, and another 10%– who are keen on either getting into management, or on running their own show– work like fiends. Looks like a standard distribution to me, come to think of it, which means that, performance wise, 95% of people will be within 2 standard deviations of average.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:59:35 +0000

Not my industry. I could guess, but I’m not familiar with what those results should be.

But what you and I both know is that there are teachers who contribute nothing and still have jobs. (For the record, I don’t think you’re one of them.)

Not everyone who contributes gets paid, and not everyone who gets paid contributes.

By: butch hillhurst

butch hillhurst — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:57:43 +0000

define “results,” define “measurable,” etc etc.

Not everything worthwhile can be measured, not everything that can be measured is worthwhile.