Hello book friends, welcome to continue to be a guest in the little book boy's reading circle, today we continue to talk about this book, noise, yesterday we said, the way to reduce noise in medicine, is to try to use equipment data, replace the judgment of doctors, the future machine to replace doctors, will be a gradual process. In addition, doctors will continue to increase training, and then they will also increase consultations, these are ways to reduce noise, and the future of medicine will rely more and more on algorithms, this process, can reduce bias and noise, and at the same time, can significantly cut costs and save more patients' lives. No matter how expensive a set of machines is, he can quickly replicate them, but the training of good doctors is always very scarce, so medical resources are always unbalanced. If the medical algorithm is standardized, many diseases can actually be treated locally.
Objectively speaking, replacing doctors with machines is not something that can be achieved now. Once such technology is developed, the medical profession will face a huge professional crisis. The level of fatigue in the work of doctors is indeed a major impact on their judgment, which is tantamount to a negative interference for patients. Let's take a closer look at the performance appraisal situation. Each company has its own performance criteria, ranging from 1 to 5, with 5 being excellent performance, 1 being a clear dereliction of duty, and the rest being "average". However, in fact, performance evaluation is also an art in itself, and in this art, there is a lot of noise, many times, they are just noise, the author also pointed out that the difference in an employee's performance may only be 20%, but in the eyes of the boss and others, this part of the difference can become huge, and most of these differences are meaningless noise. It's not entirely prejudiced to hear people say that noise at work comes from many aspects, such as how lenient it is for some employees and strict for others. Sometimes the leader will even put forward higher requirements for some employees he really wants to cultivate, and for the old employees who have left, it is inevitable that there will be some laissez-faire, which makes many people feel very unfair, why can he be late casually but still get a bonus, and I have to bear such a loss?This is because you don't understand the true intentions of the leader, and often, the leader will lose interest in cultivating it when they see it. If you yourself have gone astray, then no matter how hard the leader tries, it will not help.
Another common type of noise is emotion. Some people are good at sycophancy, while others think they are straightforward and often rub shoulders with their leaders, in which case they tend to be fair and impartial when evaluating their performance. Today, many companies have developed 360-degree performance aggregation feedback systems in pursuit of fairness. It includes the evaluation of superiors, subordinates also need to give feedback, and colleagues at the same level should also rate each other. What seems like a fair operation is actually full of problems.
In this way, the cost of human resources has been increased exponentially, and everyone is busy scoring, while the actual work is wasted. The authority of the leader and the employee is not equal, and the employee will often help him support him for the sake of the leader, in this case, if you turn around and give him a low score, you will be the victim in the end.
Therefore, this kind of complex 360-degree evaluation is not only meaningless, but harmful. Subsequently, some companies have adopted a ranking system that classifies employees as good and bad first, rather than rating. Whether they are strict or lenient in their superiors, they are all ranked the same. In this way, there is no need to please the leader and curry favor with him, and unnecessary disputes are reduced. This is somewhat similar to our college entrance examination experience, you say you can't do it, this teacher says you can, that doesn't count, you have to look at the results to speak, and the hierarchy is strict, and the score is king. All the admission criteria are in the order of your grades, and this ranking is the most important, and other conditions can be negotiated, but this score must be iron-faced and selfless, non-negotiable. So, even if you have some minor problems, within this system, the ranking system of the college entrance examination is the most fair method.
Back to the company, performance appraisal is the same thing. On grades, on rankings, and then based on this result, you can decide whether to be promoted, maintained, or demoted. If there is such a system, everyone can understand it, and there will be no discussion. Of course, you can have rankings, but we can't force everyone to rank, and forcing rankings will only make employees feel very uncomfortable and even counterproductive. In this way, we will add some unnecessary distractions, just like our performance appraisal decisions, which are time-consuming and laborious, and will also discourage employees.
Some companies, in order to make performance appraisal more objective and scientific, will also adopt quantitative methods. They will find a lot of previous cases and tell you what the results of this decision will be, what kind of score will be obtained, and where will you be ranked. Such an approach, although to some extent helpful for evaluation, still feels a bit reluctant and a little unreal in general. You may think that the assessment is a simple process, but in fact, it raises more questions. My view is that small businesses usually don't need an over-the-top appraisal system, which can hinder the efficiency of the business. After all, most of the results are just noise and a waste of time. In the author's opinion, many enterprises have the problem of over-management, management is not the key, only real values are the driving force of the company.
Next, let's take a look at recruitment. Interviews are very important for recruitment, and interviewers need to ask questions to understand the candidate's situation, but the process is full of uncertainty. Many people are confident in answering questions, but they don't actually do it as well as they expected. As a result, the failure rate in the recruitment process is extremely high, and it is often difficult to find the right talent. In fact, there is a lot of noise in the interview, and the interviewer is often more inclined to choose people who are similar to themselves.
In the game of interviews, psychological inclination can play a big role.
We are generally more comfortable talking to people who are similar to us, so we feel more comfortable and we are more inclined to look for people who share our own views.
Therefore, the interviewer invites all the faces they admire.
Even within the same company, the candidates selected by different interviewers can be very different.
The deviation is self-evident.
Of course, during the interview, the environment, physical strength, emotions, as well as personal image and appearance, etc., will become noise, and sometimes, these noises can determine your fate.
Articulate and bubbly candidates tend to make a good impression on the interviewer at the beginning of the interview, but for those who are introverted, it can be difficult for the interviewer to communicate.
If the interviewer has recently met interviewees who are all similar, they may simply drop this type of candidate.
So, how do you get rid of that noise in an interview?
Multiple rounds of interviews are a versatile method.
For example, as Google does, sometimes a candidate is exposed to 25 rounds of interviews.
But this approach is obviously too complicated. An interesting finding is that four interviews are very sure, but if you continue to increase the number of interviews, it will not improve the effect.
It's no secret that aggregating data is a great way to reduce error rates, but this is only possible if the data collected is independent of each other.
Now, do you know why Google's personnel interviews are divided into four parts?They are general cognitive skills, leadership, cultural fit, and role-related knowledge. These four aspects do not include the appearance of the image and the ability to speak. This design is intended to guide the interviewers to judge the interviewee from all angles, so as to judge them more objectively.
This design is also an important advantage of the checklist method, for example, before the aircraft takes off, all crew members will check it according to the checklist to ensure that nothing is missed. With this checklist, the crew can make more precise inspections and avoid mistakes due to preconceived impressions.
In fact, it is the same with investment companies, whether you want to invest in a company, you need to make a list to check. Through the list, you can not only reduce the risk of miscalculation, but also have a more comprehensive understanding of the actual situation of the invested company. We need to do our homework before investing. Fundamentals, such as profit margins, revenues, growth rates, etc., should be sorted out. There are also many valuation indicators, such as price-to-book ratio, price-to-earnings ratio, price-to-sales ratio, market highest valuation, and lowest valuation, which must be kept in mind.
The discounted cash flow method is also crucial. Don't forget the emotional side, poor market expectations can affect investment decisions. Therefore, it is very important to make a list to help you filter out the noise and avoid missing important information.
In addition, it is important for recruitment to make structured judgments, but to ensure independence and prevent interviewers from influencing each other. Create a quantitative assessment** with some classic examples to measure a candidate's cognitive abilities and more. Finally, all interview results are submitted to the hiring committee, who will conduct a comprehensive evaluation based on the scores.
To sum up, although this way of judging is subjective, it is based on objective analysis and the collection of evidence. That's the beauty of rational investing. Let's briefly talk about the technique of intermediary evaluation, which is an effective way to avoid subjective judgment. First of all, we need to have an independent evaluation attitude;Secondly, the object of evaluation should be something concrete;Finally, we need to summarize the details of various things to come up with an average. In this way, just like we wash our hands, although you don't know the bacteria on your hands specifically, there must be a relatively objective effect.
On the issue of noise, there are some who disagree. They argue that reducing noise is costly, not necessarily effective, and can lead to new problems. In addition, some people believe that the measures taken to eliminate noise may introduce new errors. This may draw attention to one's own respect and dignity.
In addition, there are those who believe that there may be new values and morals in the noise, and that these are vital things that cannot be ignored. Some people may also take advantage of the opportunity to eliminate noise for speculation. At the same time, the noise system also has a certain deterrent effect and cannot be easily ignored.
Finally, there are those who believe that being a pinion in the chain of decision-making can be an unbearable situation. However, he doesn't think so, he firmly believes that we should solve the noise problem right now, and wants to know his reasonThen please listen to my analysis for you in the next issue.