Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The paper:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6787638

Unclear if it's been peer reviewed. The abstract looks fairly convincing. But it is argued against by the majority of research on this topic.

 help



The one glaring omission the jumps out to me is Holmström's theorem like effects of incentives.

There has been a huge shift towards metrics, to the point that managers are often forced to or at least commonly believe they are forced to game those metrics.

It is challenging to take strategic risks when you have to focus on metrics which cannot measure let alone value those choices.


The first handful of sentences from the abstract were a rather convincing case against the paper to me.

You only needed to read the "first handful of sentences from the abstract" to dismiss an EIGHTY-TWO page paper? Can you share a sample sentence and what you don't like about it?

> Can you share a sample sentence and what you don't like about it?

I suspect you can find the first sentences without aid. Try reading them yourself first.




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

Search: