Mediocrity drift: Difference between revisions

Mediocrity drift (view source)

Revision as of 23:27, 25 November 2022

370 bytes added , 25 November 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,371

edits

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 If so, then a system which favours one group (group A) over another (group B) has a counterintuitive effect on the remaining populations of each group: on ''average'', the unfavoured group B will ''increase'' in relative value, while favoured group A will ''decrease'' in relative value, ''even though no individual performance, in either group, changes at all''.
-On a second glance, you can see why this should be so. The process systematically weeds out ''underperforming'' members of group B and ''overperforming'' members of group A. The “good” side of the distribution will progressively become group B-dominated — they are not being bid away as frequently — and the “below par” section will becomes progressively group A dominated.
+On a second glance, you can see why this should be so. The process systematically weeds out ''underperforming'' members of group B and ''overperforming'' members of group A. The “good” side of the distribution will progressively become group B-dominated — they are not being bid away as frequently — and the “below par” section will becomes progressively group A dominated, as poor performing group B members are selected for eradication.
-Two observations: here is [[systemantics]] in its raw natural state; and notice how pernicious the idea of the ''average'' is here. On average, the minority is paid progressively less. It looks like minority employees are being discriminated against on pay, but in fact they are being ''favoured for poor performance''.
+Two observations: firstly, here is [[systemantics]] in its raw natural state; and secondly, notice how pernicious the idea of the ''average'' is here.
-How your incoming lateral hires perform will remain to be seen, but remember performance is measured relative to cost, and since by leaving they have marked themselves to market, they leave their old quincunx at the top and enter their new quincunx at the mean Your arriving at a higher cost than the ones you are replacing, they start not as outlier good staff, but average ones.
+On average, the group A is paid progressively less. It looks like group A members are being systematically discriminated against on pay, but this is not so (in this model, ''no-one’s'' pay changes) in fact group A members are being ''favoured for poor performance''.
+How your incoming [[lateral hire]]s perform will remain to be seen but, remember, performance is measured relative to cost. Since by leaving they have marked themselves to market, overperformers leave their old slot in the [[quincunx]] where they were at the top, and enter their ''new'' quincunx at the median. The vicissitudes of random chance mean the new arrivals might wind up in any slot but, in any case, their slot on average will be normally distributed. Your arriving at a higher cost than the ones you are replacing, they start not as outlier good staff, but average ones.
 {{sa}}
 *[[Lateral quitter]]
 *[[Reduction in force]]
 *[[Competence phase transition]]