A word of caution: process is still important. We generate process to mitigate the opportunities for mischief, like favoritism, or nepotism, or discrimination, etc.; it also manages exposure to litigation from adverse personnel decisions. It's a razor's edge of balance between identifying intuitive leaders outside a metrics framework and also relying on metrics, not as a savior, but as one factor to consider. But I understand your point about metrics capture. I have a story about the risks inherent in departure from process as well.
Razor's edge is probably the perfect way to describe an ideal balance that comes close to nullifying mischief in either direction. Getting that balance right is super tough and there will still be misfires. But my belief is that the juice becomes worth the squeeze when our accuracy is maximized long enough that we have strong leaders operating the process and safeguarding it.
At this moment I'm thinking of the Air Force, which fools itself into believing it is promoting the best candidates because of its process. But basically half of an O-6s development is focused on how to manipulate and exploit the bureaucracy more effectively than a competitor. It's just one huge game, and as we know, some of the best officers decide they can only win by refusing to play.
Yes. The process produces outcomes in the Marine Corps that look like this, at O6 for example:
10% irreplaceable. Clearly better than the other 90% on talent and merit.
20% forget it. Does not have the skill or talent to function at that level.
70% interchangeable. But out of that 70% we only select 30% to join the 10% at the top who “win” the promotion lottery. But in truth if you put that 30% on a boat and sank it in the ocean and called “next people up” and replaced them with the next 30%, the institution wouldn’t change at all. So really it’s just Camoflage American Idol.
A word of caution: process is still important. We generate process to mitigate the opportunities for mischief, like favoritism, or nepotism, or discrimination, etc.; it also manages exposure to litigation from adverse personnel decisions. It's a razor's edge of balance between identifying intuitive leaders outside a metrics framework and also relying on metrics, not as a savior, but as one factor to consider. But I understand your point about metrics capture. I have a story about the risks inherent in departure from process as well.
Razor's edge is probably the perfect way to describe an ideal balance that comes close to nullifying mischief in either direction. Getting that balance right is super tough and there will still be misfires. But my belief is that the juice becomes worth the squeeze when our accuracy is maximized long enough that we have strong leaders operating the process and safeguarding it.
At this moment I'm thinking of the Air Force, which fools itself into believing it is promoting the best candidates because of its process. But basically half of an O-6s development is focused on how to manipulate and exploit the bureaucracy more effectively than a competitor. It's just one huge game, and as we know, some of the best officers decide they can only win by refusing to play.
Yes. The process produces outcomes in the Marine Corps that look like this, at O6 for example:
10% irreplaceable. Clearly better than the other 90% on talent and merit.
20% forget it. Does not have the skill or talent to function at that level.
70% interchangeable. But out of that 70% we only select 30% to join the 10% at the top who “win” the promotion lottery. But in truth if you put that 30% on a boat and sank it in the ocean and called “next people up” and replaced them with the next 30%, the institution wouldn’t change at all. So really it’s just Camoflage American Idol.