Use of the word "Performance" when speaking of firings

[Duer 157099]

I've noticed repeatedly that the bushies are very careful to use the word "performance" about why the USAs were fired.

It's clever, because normal usage of that word implies something qualitative -- that someone being fired over performance issues was "performing poorly" -- but of course, it could also mean that they were "not performing what we wanted them to do"

A nuance we need to be aware of as they spin this

[Igel]

1. I don't see a difference.

"Bad" and "good" are always relative to one's expectations or one's moral code. Usually that boils down to "what we want", even if it's filtered through philosophy or theology.

"Good", "useful", "just", "important" and a bunch of other words are simply evaluative, stating a judgment, and necessarily imply the presence of more information.

It's why context is important for understanding what's said, and why defining terms is important in communication. I'm working on a syllabus; I have to define what "good" is in terms of knowledge acquired, approaches in essays, etc., etc. Otherwise the students would assume their own definitions of "good" apply, and be indignant when they found my definition diverged from theirs. Been there, done that.

[Duer 157099]

2. Here's the difference

By using the generic word "performance" as the reason for the firings, what they want to project is "poor performance" when they actually do NOT say that. Because, how could they say that, when the performance reviews had all been overwhelmingly positive?

So, they can say they were fired over "performance" EVEN THOUGH the "performance reviews" were all good -- because the reason wasn't that they were performing poorly, just that they were not performing the actions that the executive branch wanted them to perform, some of which were probably unethical at the minimum.

[Igel]

3. But there were several performance ratings.

Some counted more for some people, some more for others. In one performance evaluation--Sampson's--Fitzgerald was only middling (then again, this was a review in 2005). Some of those fired got "poor" as their grade; McNulty said "performance", probably based on that review--not other reviews. Perhaps he didn't understand the basis for that review; perhaps he did.

Actually, they did say what formed the basis of the "poor" ratings, which tend to correlate with those fired. "Compliance with administration goals", or some such blather. That sounds rather explicit. And political. I'm not going to deal with the crucial quibble over whether "political" refers to "policy" or "politics."

"Poor performance" is contradicted by other evaluations with different standards for "good"; even by Sampson's criterion it appears Lam was mis-evaluated. But it's obvious that most performance reviews had different bases for evaluation, more standard criteria.

I've had enough experience to recognize 'performance' is a semantic placeholder.

(edited to clean up some syntax)

[Duer 157099]

4. Nice way to phrase it: "a semantic placeholder"

All I'm really saying is that if one pays close attention to what Bush and Fredo say, they will *always* use the single term "performance" rather than qualifying it. A "semantic placeholder" if you will (and I know you will). :D

[Igel]

5. But really, it's always a semantic placeholder.

I once chaired a personnel committee. I 'inherited' the form for evaluating the CEO, handed the 3 or 4 page thing out, and collected the results.

A third of the Board wanted to fire the CEO with cause, he'd done a horrible job; a third thought the CEO should be given a raise and a bonus, he walked on water; a third thought he was doing ok. Almost all evaluated the same man for the same 9 months that they'd seen him in action; a few had seen him in action for a couple of years. Everybody read their own definitions into the evaluation: frat boys, a self-avowed socialist, university administrators, grad students in engineering and film, a law professor and a laywer that worked in civil rights advocacy.

Two months later we fired his sorry ass for lying to the Board. We finally reached a consensus, but over an act that hadn't yet taken place when he was evaluated.

But that didn't solve the evaluation problem. I drew up a 30+ page form with an appendix stipulating exactly what each criterion meant, exactly what the basis for a "very good" versus a "good" was; my committee approved it (actually, they made it slightly longer). Then I grouped the questions, and made the Board approve the weight given to each group. When we had a new CEO, that "tool" was used. One Board member spend 5 hours on it, got half way through, and threw it in my face; that was his choice, it was thrown in the trash. When I processed all the other forms, completed, there was great unanimity. Given possible rankings between 0 and 5, and completely filling in the "placeholder" through definitions and examples, the standard deviation was something like 0.2.