Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Marchello_E t1_iws3ztx wrote

50% of all the employees perform below average (actually median).

780

KWillets t1_iwsak06 wrote

50% have below average statistical knowledge.

181

fpfx t1_iwt8szs wrote

7 out of 5 people have a problem with ratios

60

redvelvetcake42 t1_iwtayli wrote

My god that's .2 in long division.

14

Famous-Somewhere9191 t1_iwso125 wrote

less than 50%

14

UnkindPotato t1_iwtbfbg wrote

Think of how dumb the average person is... roughly half of them are dumber than that

3

baalyle t1_iwxmev0 wrote

49% do. Those at 50% have average.

1

Tmdngs t1_iws4yrz wrote

Unless they all score average exactly lol

48

Marchello_E t1_iwsibk0 wrote

Then there will be differences in the working commitment hours, minutes, seconds, perhaps milliseconds... if not then take from the logs the index of the login sequence. With the right metric one can always "find" a low performer ^((if it includes you then find another metric))

5

Desperate_Resource38 t1_iwsybxd wrote

This is what people don't understand about cherry-picking data; with many things that don't have a direct and comparable representation (ie you get to choose what measurements make up the final results) there is almost always a combination of empirical measurements directly suited to the results you want to achieve.

18

ShodoDeka t1_iwt8quj wrote

That is not the same as a low performer. Especially in a company that prides it self on only hiring the best of the best.

12

saltyhasp t1_iwsx485 wrote

And any rating is by some arbitrary metric which is probably not very accurate.

3

x-squared t1_iwu2nzc wrote

Average and median aren't the same. It's likely more than 50% are below average. If zero is the limit as far as how far down the scale you can go but there is no limit to how much you can excell, you'll likely see a distribution skewed to the left. This means that the median will fall to the left of the average.

Tldr; I completely miss the point and instead talk about how average is kind of a shit metric sometimes.

2

SkyNetIsNow t1_iwuhd19 wrote

At one point my state ranked the bottom 10% of schools as failing. You would here some politicians talk reducing the number of failing school although that would be impossible.

1

Oscarcharliezulu t1_iwu465n wrote

The bell curve seems to exist just to rank people without understanding their true value.

0

Marchello_E t1_iwv2lqc wrote

There is simply no way that people perform (or be) as average as anyone else. A bell curve is just a plot: a mathematical visualization.

An often overlooked thing is that one on the left side of the hill may brighten the day of the one on the right side of the hill. For a random image: maybe that "lefty" likes plants more than the actual work yet, as he walks around, is the perfect target to bounce of ideas (he has to have some work related talents) to see how they may get received even before doing some alpha/beta testing in the wild. As such this may informally connect different aspects of a group. Boot the "lefty" to boost "righties" and a new bell curve will arise. Likely on another curve showing more stress, more internal competition, and less solidarity.

3

Oscarcharliezulu t1_ix2bzxe wrote

The bell curve is a perfectly good working model for a normal distribution but the evil comes when you decide what the variables are and then apply that curve to your population in order to get the result you want.

1

miltonfriedman2028 t1_iwsuwqw wrote

As a executive director who has done quite a few performance reviews of juniors…despite the statistical impossibility, 100% of employees think they are above average, regardless of what the facts, feedback, and common sense may show.

−12

Soupkitchn89 t1_iwsv4m3 wrote

I mean if you got hired by Google you probably at least a little above average.

13

miltonfriedman2028 t1_iwsvbx9 wrote

I work at a top investment bank and previously worked at a top strategy consulting firms (McKinsey, Bain,bcg), even at highly selective companies, people slip through the cracks.

−4

Soupkitchn89 t1_iwsvi9l wrote

I feel like those industries have a lot more nepotism then tech does though.

12

Desperate_Resource38 t1_iwt3x64 wrote

Meh, past a certain base of technical understanding (enough to talk through solving a programming problem on the phone), it's all connections and soft skills. At Microsoft if you get an interview for an internship there's like a 50% chance you get the offer, but like 1% of the people who apply actually get the interview. And even though these companies have at-will employment, in reality it's INCREDIBLY difficult to get rid of people if they don't want to leave, and with big tech they often print enough money that it's either not worth the hassle of firing slight underperformers or it's not worth getting rid of proven engineers who have nothing to work on right now and having to find actually good new senior engineers to hire if and when the need for them arises. There's no industry that's really immune to nepotism/cronyism IMO.

3

kingkeelay t1_iwtk3p3 wrote

If you have below average employees it says more about your hiring practices than anything. Don’t you take pride in hiring above average talent? Or do you hire bottom feeders for below average wages and get below average results?

1

miltonfriedman2028 t1_iwu4ez6 wrote

We pay $200k+ at junior levels, so I don’t really think it’s bottom feeders.

There’s only so much information you can glean from 30-60 minute interviews, and some people are good BS’ers and just turn out to be lazy when they start. It’s unavoidable.

Plenty of people with top grades, from top schools, and relevant previous experience at a great company, who join and then how low quality of work and productivity, regardless of training / feedback.

0