A year ago, I had an interesting discussion with a colleague about evaluating performance in the context of external constraints. The question was: “If you are leading a team of people whose lives are under differing amounts of non-work demands, should you evaluate their performance in light of these demands?”

Example: There are two people in a team – a single guy and a divorced father with two kids. They both deliver the same results. Should they both get the same rating, or should the person who manages to deliver results despite high non-work demands (i.e. the single father) be evaluated more favorably?

My colleague’s answer was that the two should be treated differently, because it’s harder for the lone parent to deliver the same results than for the single guy (for whom it is easier to stay longer hours or work without interruptions).

My answer was no, the evaluation should solely depend upon the set goals in the beginning of the year. If a person reaches his set goals, he should be evaluated and incentivized accordingly. Certainly, a single parent is likely to have less capacity than a single guy without kids; however, if this difference in capacity influences anything, it should be the respective goals, not the evaluation. The outcome may be the same (the single guy having to work harder than the widower), with one important difference: They both know what is expected of them, and how to reach or exceed those expectations.

And even the differently set goals might be unfair: What if the single guy pursues a promising career in amateur swimming (consuming most of his weekends), or spends a lot of time volunteering in a center for disabled people? Does it matter for your evaluation if you spend your off-work time raising children, volunteering, doing sports, persuing hobbies, or just hanging out in front of the TV? Isn’t work-life balance something individual that it is impossible to use it as a frame of reference for performance evaluation?

What do you think?

In a brilliant contrarian blog post, titled provocatively “Should you lose the n00bs?”, Seth Godin asks how simply should applications be designed, and what kind of prerequisites a programmer should expect from its users. For years, the standard approach was to design any application with an ignorant user in mind (which German speaking programmers not so affectionately call the DAU approach, for “dümmster annehmbarer User” = “stupidest user possible”). Godins objects:

“The problem with this approach is that you can never be simple enough. And of course, the bigger problem: Once you dumb it down so every single person gets it, you bake out the magic and the mystery and the elegance. (…) At the symphony, should there be big applause signs so that people don’t clap at the wrong time?”

The great idea behind this short post is that it disconnects intuitiveness from usability:

• Intuitiveness refers to how easy it is for new users to catch on – and this depends upon prior knowledge. Connecting tables in Access is intuitive, if you know how a relational database works. Using Google Reader is intuitive if you know what an RSS feed is.
• Usability refers to principles of efficiency and predictability in using a tool. A link on a website should stand out of non-linked text, preferrably underlined. The “File” menu should be the first in any windows application. A user should be able to correct errors with Undo. Usability applies to every kind of user, regardless of his knowledge about the application.

Instead of making applications idiot-proof, Godin suggest to either accept confusion and encourage questions, or to respectfully shut newbies out:

“Why not consider making it easy for the confused to ask for help? And treat them with respect when they do. If you don’t create a little confusion, it’s unlikely you’ve built something remarkable.

And to go one step further: sometimes it’s okay to lose the n00bs. Not in an arrogant way (except for some brands) but in a way that says, ‘this might just not be for you…’”

[Link: Seth's Blog: "Should You Lose the N00bs?"]

I’m observing an odd backlash phenomenon among early adopters of social media. Many high profile bloggers start posting articles describing fatigue of blogging, blog content, social media hype, and level of innovation in web apps. It’s curious (or maybe obvious) that just as the big web masses are slowly catching onto Social Media, the earlier enthusiasts of Twitter, Friendfeed, and other services drift into a post-modern stage of Web 2.0, where nothing is new and everything is re-invented again.

Here are some examples:

• She-Geeks: “The Repetition of the Blogosphere”
• Scobleizer: “Why Tech Blogging has Failed You”
• ProBlogger: “Has Blogging Lost Its Relational Focus?”

However, there are other voices as well:

• Regular Geek: “Passion, Early Adopters and the Mainstream”
• The Inquisitr: “The Changing Blogosphere and Blogging 2.0″
• ReadWriteWeb: “Mixed Messages in the Blogosphere”