Hacker News .hnnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I manage a data science team, and currently I measure on 4 axes:

–Technical (ability to effectively solve problems)

–Business (picking which problems to solve)

–Productivity (things done to improve workflows, automate processes, etc. of themselves & team)

–Team (teaching, hiring, training)

This works pretty well. I find that these skills are multiplicative, so someone's impact on the team is reasonably well-approximated by taking an average of these scores. I also find many things you might expect, e.g. variance in technical skill is pretty high, talented engineers usually develop high technical skills before high skills in the other domains, senior engineers tend to be force multipliers by being exceptional at the non-technical skills, etc.



Meh, this is almost exactly the formulaic industry-standard "solution."

The challenge here is that a human is evaluating all of these traits (you). Of course you think you're not biased, but research shows all humans are [e.f. more likely to promote people who remind them of themselves, without being threatening].

I think much like if an engineer made code and said "it's working great" without any kind of external monitoring to validate, asking a manager to promote without external validation is completely a crap-shoot.


I think what you label business is the most important and also hardest skill of these. It is also immediately relevant for productivity and team/training if you consider "learning as a whole"[0] a good approach (which I do).

[0] See: "Making Learning Whole" by David Perkins




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: