Judge not less ye be judged (if we can judge it at all?)

Dilbert teaches us that we are ruled over by a pointy haired boss who has no clue about the details of what is actually going on. In fact time and time again our performance is being evaluated by people who really don't understand the details. Not just management. Consultants, researchers, all the rest of it, who actually, often do not know anything about what it actually takes to accomplish a certain job. Doesn't sound good really.

Surely, only someone that understands what's going on would be qualified to judge and make recommendations. Let's break down what our judges are often asked to do:

Assess / Evaluate – how good was x?
Research – Why did x happen? What do y people think about x?
Recommend – What should we do next?

For the first and second – understanding the subject matter is really not needed. I can make reasonable comparisons on things that I don't understand the subject matter. One can see what the users think. In fact, having excessive understanding of the program itself could simply lead one to loose sight of the forest for looking at trees. Regardless of the brilliant foo() function, if users don't like it and it costs double what a similar program cost, something has gone wrong. Certainly there are some who can wear multiple hats – understanding the details but not getting lost looking at small shiny things. But I reckon they're the exception, not the rule.

What those who don't understand the subject matter are utterly unqualified for are for the most part recommendations. Without a firm grasp of the subject matter at hand, how can you say what should come next? Perhaps by luck there is a shining example somewhere else to draw on from evaluation, but without it, you're lost. For someone who doesn't know the subject matter to tell me that what I did was good or not is fine. For them to tell me about what they think about why that was is also fine. For them to tell me a plan for what to do next, when they don't have a clue and haven't experienced it, is often frustrating and arrogant.

Bottom line: The clueless can actually make pretty good judges, but not the best for making plans.

Accept stones from glass houses; avoid a downward spiral

In dysfunctional environments many might think they have answers. Answers often seem relatively apparent. Even whilst those prescribing the answers are not practicing that themselves; like the doctor telling us not to smoke, just before he goes for the cigarette break.

So it's easy to find the double standards think of one self as high and mighty for having identified that and then hastily ignore what was said. That the doctor smokes doesn't invalidate what he said about cigarettes though.

All we get is a downward spiral between all stakeholders - every iteration leading overall standards lower and lower. Before one knows it all the stakeholders in any given project; all knowing the dangers of smoking cigarettes and telling each other about it, and yet all themselves turn into chain smokers.

So I for one will start looking at the rocks thrown from those who reside in glass houses, or stone houses, in more or less the same way - on the merit of the rock that's just come crashing through the window.

[Photo by Thomas Hawk used under Creative Commons http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/5687171572/ ]