12 ms·
The paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6787638 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6787638 Unclear if it's been peer r
by smarm52 4mo ago
The paper:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6787638 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.
- nyrikki 4mo agoThe 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.
- nitwit005 4mo agoThe first handful of sentences from the abstract were a rather convincing case against the paper to me.
- throwaway2037 4mo agoYou 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?
- nitwit005 4mo ago> 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.