IRL I'm a Senior Analyst at a really big company. Generally that means I babysit reports while they compile, make spreadsheets pretty and help members of senior leadership work the printer and open e-mail attachments.
Aside from that I collect, compile, review and adjudicate employee performance metrics across all branches of the business. From retail to tech support, customer service, projects, pretty much everyone. Literally the mechanics of what makes someone 'good at their job' vs 'needs improvement'. I've got 600 people I connect with directly and just shy of 22,000 people to pull from for sampling. I build processes for helping employees of all types get better and improve. The mechanics of how to make people excel. Modesty aside I'm very good at it. I've helped my company develop our employees to be the absolute best in our industry; our customer service marks are so high we not only outstrip everyone else in our industry but are ranking comparable to dedicated service/luxury industries. Understanding what makes someone good at their job is my thing and I do it well.
It's actually all the same. Be in the guy behind a counter in the store dealing with the customer face to face, the person answering the phone in customer service, the tech support guy, the field service technician, the resource planning analyst, supervisors, managers, it's all the same. You'd call it the GIT GUD mentality. People who have it start out running but you can promote it in others in the right setting.
I've done it for this company for about 9 years now. Plotted the careers of countless employees, watched innumerable people join the company and either churn or promote or settle into a niche and disappear. Why it is, how it is that some people rocket right to leadership positions and success while others get out of training and barely tread water.
While not a simple topic a lot of it comes down to personal responsibility. Some people look at challenges and immediately set to finding ways to improve to overcome them. They set goals for themselves and put energy and effort into reaching them. The moment those people come into contact with good leaders who can mentor and direct them, BOOM. Thunderclap, their performance explodes upward and they develop. The best of them become good leaders in turn and keep the cycle going.
Good leaders coach and develop new leaders.
Good performers seek out good leaders and invest themselves in finding the best ways to perform.
Most are not in those groups though. They want success to fall into their outstretched hand. They have a set idea of how much effort they want to put forward and they want the bar for success to fall to that point and are upset when it doesn't. Since they're not willing to do more than the minimum effort level they've decided upon anyone who's doing more than that is 'doing something wrong'. They'll translate that to 'brown-nosing' or even 'cheating' because it's a level of effort they are unwilling or unable to invest.
So mediocre performers and bad performers are focused on blame. Since they have reached the limit of what they are *willing* to do they are unable to look at themselves as the problem so it's about blaming someone else.
MW:O is a team based PvP game.
Every single match, every single one, is you on a team of 12 vs another team of 12. There is no actual solo play just the inexplicable ability to join a team of randoms. That's the game. If you're playing MW:O, you're in a team game.
Within MW:O there's a 'hardcore' mode of CW which is hugely skewed towards the benefits of teamwork. That's the game. That's what it is. If you're playing it, you're playing a team-focused game.
So that's got the same issues. You've got the people who see that, adapt and excel because they recognize that the only thing they control is themselves and thus the only way to excel is to better themselves and then you've go the group that can not/will not change and are angry at a system that does not change to lower the bar to make them a winner.
Conversion from mediocre to top performer is hard. You can drag up the average by having clear processes in place and liberal use of recognition for success and a lot of hands on development but to turn someone from zero to hero you need to get them face time with a good leader and tuck them in with other top performers. You need to show them what being successful looks like so they can at least 'fake it until you make it'. Then when they do succeed you ensure they get recognition for it.
We don't have the tools for that in MW:O. We make it easy for bad players to just stay in a bad bubble. There's no effective way to tuck bad players in with good players on teams on comms to show them what success looks like so they can get that taste of it and want more.
So instead what we have is groups of good players that will continue to get better and better and attract good players while bad players float in a brown sea of bad players with no development or direction.
That's why I'm in favor of the queue split. We don't have to tools to help bads get good and you can not compel them to put in the effort if they're unwilling. So the bad players will blame everyone else for their failures and they will always be bad. They'll be happiest walled off in the cesspit so the standard for 'success' is so low they feel like a winner regardless. What you are not going to do is make them understand the realities of the game and what it takes to excel; if they could understand that they already would and they'd already be executing on it.
Edited by MischiefSC, 28 February 2016 - 12:31 PM.
4
Commander A9, on 09 January 2016 - 07:29 AM, said:
