{"action":"closed","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Readify/madskillz/issues/32","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Readify/madskillz/issues/32/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Readify/madskillz/issues/32/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Readify/madskillz/issues/32/events","html_url":"https://github.com/Readify/madskillz/issues/32","id":83856101,"number":32,"title":"Balancing Act: Enabling Personal Growth or Enabling Performance Measurement?","user":{"login":"michaelnoonan","id":1627582,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1627582?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/michaelnoonan","html_url":"https://github.com/michaelnoonan","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michaelnoonan/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michaelnoonan/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michaelnoonan/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michaelnoonan/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michaelnoonan/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michaelnoonan/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michaelnoonan/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michaelnoonan/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michaelnoonan/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":11,"created_at":"2015-06-02T05:48:48Z","updated_at":"2015-06-23T00:19:04Z","closed_at":"2015-06-23T00:19:04Z","body":"Quoting @andrewabest from https://github.com/Readify/madskillz/issues/28#issuecomment-107793584, I think this is worth promoting to its own discussion since this has been a hot and interesting topic of conversation in QLD.\r\n\r\n> To your point of ensuring that we have an equal yardstick when measuring someones capabilities - this is where the duality of MadSkillz kicks in. It needs to both support the needs of the consulting pool, allowing them to communicate openly and freely as is needed to drive growth, and the needs of our HR department when they need to decide whether people are performing up to expectations, whether people deserve promotions, and how much people should be paid. The more of a 'measurement' tool it becomes, the less of a 'growth' tool it will be, as people won't be as honest and open in discussing the points if it is being used to 'measure' them to judge their bottom line.\r\n\r\n> I believe the current approach of gathering evidence from the retrospectives (which will vary a lot from consultant to consultant) and mixing this with the leadership groups opinion should lead to a fairly equitable judgement of a given persons contribution to Readify.\r\n\r\nAre there some principles we can establish to maintain a happy balance between \"creating a safe-zone for retrospective conversations that encourage personal growth\" and \"using it to make decisions based on a person's contribution to Readify\"?"}}