Its better to cut from the bottom, than promote at the top
My idea comes from observing various chaotic systems (ecological in particular… I used to have an ecologist for a roommate).
The best example/metaphor I have is breeding livestock. If you select for the best traits (top 10% every generation), you will get to your target sooner, but you run the risk of introducing congenital deformities. If you always remove the worst traits (bottom 10%) you are generally moving in the right direction, but also reduce your biased selections which may remove traits that are beneficial, but not in an obvious way.
That guy you dislike because he’s obnoxious, but gets the job done. It could be that the only person he rubs wrong is the manager, otherwise he is liked and valuable. By selecting from the bottom, you are much less likely to removed due to bias.
Mike Barton - 2018-06-11 19:31:12-0400
In NZ I used to see how animals were bred for showing at the local agriculture shows and how that didn’t really help the farmer as the traits wanted were different.
Plaid Sheep - 2018-06-11 19:31:13-0400
h/t +Noel Yap
Plaid Sheep - 2018-06-11 19:42:51-0400
What I observed was a loss of resilience toward catastrophe: you get high producing milk cows, but they start to get sick, requiring high doses of anti-biotics. I’ve started to see it in other areas, including team dynamics, software development (don’t implement the coolest feature, fix the biggest bug), and personal finance (don’t go for high revenue, reduce your biggest expense).
Mike Barton - 2018-06-11 19:59:33-0400
Interesting study that doesn’t surprise me.
I left a job years ago which I enjoyed and was good at because of one useless manager and ever since then I have said that if I hired anyone I would watch how they walked. His walk was sloppy and lethargic just like his work.