A system in which excellence is rewarded and incompetence is marginalized is not necessarily a bad thing, is it?
During my first year of college, back in the 70’s, I got all “A’s”.
Then the whole system switched to a Pass/Fail model. Show up- you pass. Don’t show up- you fail.
So boring, stupid and useless, I quit, got married, became a full time musician.
A recent class communicated through facebook (quite openly) and they all (100%) showed up for the final exam and sat in the hallway. No one took the test. Everyone got an "A".
The teacher was honest and consistent (but has probably since altered his policy).
The class was clever and showed good collaboration.
But the overall lesson is that "gaming the system" is the way ahead -- and the problem at Microsoft -- and achieving excellence is just not necessary.
The problem with these systems is that it isn’t always excellence that is rewarded, more political skill, as is noted in the article. Managers can successfully use these systems to harm employees they don’t like, whether the employee is a performer or not. And in the case where I work, there is great pressure to classify at least 10% of staff who as underperforming, whether they are or not. It ends up resulting in someone being screwed every so often because it is “their” turn.
Other staff notice that on years when they really go all out, they get a nominal review. The next year, doing the normal day to day work, they get promoted.
What I wanna know is if this is a story with a happy ending?
What college was that? I can see this happening in a public school but not in a private college. I guess I’m just not buying this.