The problem is that the bullshit that they spoon feed people in management schools about 'accountability' 'performance evaluation' and 'outcomes' (I would not use the word "teach" to describe this gobbledygook) has sunk so deeply in the American collective psyche that nobody even thinks about questioning its merits, let also call it for what it is - bullshit that looks good only on paper. The management crowd that is on the receiving end of this drivel is only half of the problem, the academia and management gurus that supply it is the other half.
Wojtek
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:30 PM, michael perelman
<michael.perelman3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly the point! How the hell do you define merit, unless it is
> nothing more than pleasing one's superiors.
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [WS:] Interesting. But in the example that you quote the problem
>> seems to lie not with pay based on one's "merits" or performance, but
>> in including in the definition of performance factors that are outside
>> the control of the employee. This is analogous to, say, defining
>> teacher's merits by the achievements (no matter how measured) of
>> his/her students. Obviously, many critical factors that affect
>> student's performance, such as motivation, availability for
>> instruction, background knowledge or cognitive ability are not
>> controlled by the teacher. So the problem is not that pay is linked
>> to merits, which would be difficult to argue against, but how merits
>> are defined.
>>
>> Wojtek
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:33 AM, michael perelman
>> <michael.perelman3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> One of the knocks on collective bargaining is that employers should be able
>>> to pay people what they are worth. An interesting example of this
>>> phenomenon came in the realm of professional football. In January 2011, Pro
>>> Bowl cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha's contract was voided because his contract
>>> included a little-known clause allowed the team to void his contract if he
>>> didn't achieve his not-likely-to-be-earned incentives in 2010 -- and he
>>> didn't. One reason for his failure to earn his incentives was that he was
>>> so effective that quarterbacks would not to pass to someone near him.
>>> Consequently, he did not have any interceptions.
>>> --
>>> Michael Perelman
>>> Economics Department
>>> California State University
>>> Chico, CA
>>> 95929
>>>
>>> mperelman at csuchico.edu
>>>
>>> 530 898 5321
>>> fax 530 898 5901
>>> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA
> 95929
>
> 530 898 5321
> fax 530 898 5901
> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>