Before managing the company, Chen Yiyang always had a view that if a company dares to trample on morals and laws and deliberately disgusts users, it is definitely the boss himself who instructs it.
But after managing the company, Chen Yiyang's perspective changed.
Because sometimes when a company dares to trample on morals and laws, it's not that the boss himself is bad, but rather that the boss himself is stupid.
A stupid boss managing a company will inevitably face a problem.
That is, many of the company's business and regulations are set by those senior employees, and since he cannot understand them, how does he judge which employees are doing well and which are not?
Thus, performance metrics come into play.
What we call performance is the comprehensive reflection of work achievements and results. It converts all of a person's behaviors within the company into data for the boss to check, thereby judging whether the employee is working hard and has strong capabilities.
Where is this unreliable?
Let's use a game analogy to understand.
If you start a MOBA game and choose a support character with a strong control ultimate ability.
In the game's early stages, your top laner is suppressed under the tower by the opponent, and your mid laner can't push the lane, so they can only watch the opponent's mid laner roam freely.
Your jungler can't contest neutral resources, and your ADC is poor at last-hitting, getting economically suppressed by the opposing ADC.
And you, as the strong controlling ultimate support, can hardly function in the early game.
But when it comes to the mid-game, during the first big team fight, you unleash a perfect ultimate, controlling all five opponents.
Even your clueless teammates manage to wipe out the opponents and reverse the disadvantage.
Then comes the second team fight, and the third.
Each time, you're able to provide perfect control, enabling your teammates to economically surpass the opponents and achieve a massive victory.
Once the game ends, the system begins the performance settlement.
Your top laner, although suppressed early, managed to gain economy mid-late game, dealing significant damage and providing minor control.
Damage score is seven, control score is nine, received damage score is ten, overall evaluation is excellent.
Your mid laner, although continuously suppressed early, farmed many minions and gained substantial economy, dealing considerable damage later.
Economy score is ten, control score is six, damage score is nine, overall evaluation is excellent.
Your jungler, despite struggling early to contest resources, was forced to buy many wards due to the opponent's jungler invading the jungle, leading teammates to assist, where each team fight was initiated just to save him.
Vision score is ten, damage score is five, team fight participation score is ten, overall evaluation is excellent.
Then, you have your ADC, despite early struggles getting beaten badly, collected many kills due to your excellent team initiations in the mid-late game.
Damage score is ten, economy score is ten, consecutive kill score is ten, overall evaluation is very perfect.
Finally, it's time to evaluate you.
As a support whose only ultimate can reverse the game, your received damage score is only seven, less than the top laner. Your damage score is even lower, only two.
Control score is seven, also not as good as the top laner. Based on data, you only controlled the opponents three times throughout the game, while the top laner controlled them over a dozen times while being suppressed, so your control score is naturally lower.
Vision score is six. Because in this game, your team was disadvantaged in the early-mid game, as a support, you couldn't venture forth to establish vision, so your vision score is less than the jungler.
Additionally, consecutive kill score, economy score, they are abysmal because these scores are naturally unrelated to you.
Alright, now suppose a boss who hardly understands the game bought your team and formed a squad.
After a few games, he felt that the results were not ideal.
So he decides to replace some people in the team. Guess whom he wants to replace first?
Of course, it's you, with the worst panel data and lowest performance.
Despite the team getting worse after replacing you, the boss won't admit the mistake and recruit you back, but continues to replace those with poor panel data based on performance.
This is not an isolated phenomenon but a common one.
This practice has led many companies to prioritize performance above all.
Specifically, it manifests in software advertisements.
How do many free software programs earn revenue?
They can only rely on various advertisements. But advertisements are not just about placing them on your software.
Advertisers also have KPI assessments to consider.
For example, it's not enough for users just to see the ad; they have to click the ad and be redirected to the next-level ad page for it to count as effective ad delivery.
However, which serious user would click on an ad page while using the software?
But if users don't click to redirect the ad, it reflects poorly on the data, advertisers pay less, and the company's revenue decreases.
Then the boss will evaluate every employee's performance and begin lay-offs.
Hence, to make the data look better.
