Spotlight

New Delhi, 18 October 2023

Numbers That Don’t Add Up

By Rajiv Gupta 

The number system is one of the moreremarkable inventions of humans. I find numbers very fascinating as the basic rules of the number system are simple and yet robust. If we have a group of numbers, say 2, 3 and 4, it doesn’t matter in what order we add them, i.e., 2 and 3 first and then 4, or in any other order, the result is still the same. Today this seems trivial to mention this, but it would have taken tremendous intellect to come up with such a system. Although the number system is wonderful and useful, we sometimes use numbers in a manner that was probably not intended by those that created the number system.In doing so we get ambiguous and unclear outcomes. Let me explain. 

The simplest type of numbers is those that are used for counting. For example, how many apples in a basket. We can perform simple mathematical operations on these numbers. But we also use numbers to rate and rank people and objects. A gymnast gets rated by a panel of judges on a scale of 1 to 10. How do we interpret the ratings? If one gymnast is rated an 8, while another is rated a 4, is the first gymnast twice as good as the second? The numbers used in rating cannot be used in the same way as simple numbers. The rating value is an opinion of the judge converted into a numerical scale to which normal number system rules do not apply. 

Moreover, the same gymnast may get rated differently by different judges. The numbers may mean different things to different judges. A particular judge may be more conservative in assigning scores, while another judge may be more liberal. Adding or averaging these numbers from two different judges makes as much sense as adding four apples to five oranges to get nine bananas. But that is precisely what is done in competitions. 

We are obsessed with rating everything. We witness a proliferation of reality shows with competitions comparing abilities such as singing versus dancing which cannot have a common basis for comparison. We use arbitrary scoring scales to determine who is number one, number two, etc. in any, and every, field. In fact, the most recent addition is the acronym GOAT, which stands for the “Greatest Of All Time.” And how do we determine who the GOAT is? We poll people. Unfortunately, we poll people from the present population who have had no direct exposure of the past experts in the same field. But that does not deter us. We still go ahead and rate people and anoint one person as the GOAT. Well, so much for that. 

Apart from the issue of adding and averaging numbers which cannot be added or averaged, there is a bigger problem with such an endeavour. We completely ignore the negative psychological impact such ratings have on individuals. We rate students in schools and colleges. We rate people at work. These ratings and rankings do more harm than good. Let us consider a young toddler in school. She is curious and is a sponge for learning. There is so much new and exciting for her. Now we introduce a grading system. From this point on, the focus of the child shifts from curiosity and learning to conformance to what is expected of her. Can we expect this child to contribute creatively to society? 

What does the grade or mark earned by the child represent? In the words of the famous quality and management guru, Dr W.E. Deming, “A grade is only somebody’s (e.g., teacher’s) assessment of a pupil’s achievement on some arbitrary scale.” I had an interesting experience when I had volunteered to talk to a group of 5–8-year-olds in a school in Flint, Michigan about engineering as a career option. I told them about the interesting things engineers can do. I could see the bright gleam in the eyes of the children when I spoke. The same afternoon I was teaching a class in my college. It was depressing to see the apathy and lack of interest in the students. Somewhere between the ages of 5-8 and 18, the system had effectively managed to kill any interest that the child had. The focus had shifted from learning to finding ways to get a better grade by any means, including unfair ones. The grading system played an important role in making this happen. 

We continue the ill-conceived practice of rating and ranking in the workplace. The practice of annual appraisals is meant to distinguish and reward the exceptional performers. Noted psychologist Edward Deci has shown that even positive reinforcement in the form of rewards can have the effect of killing intrinsic motivation in an individual. The focus changes from the joy of learning and enjoying a task to the reward. Moreover, the entire process of assessment, including the more recent developments such as the 360 degree review, is subjective. There are more losers than winners, which does not bode well for the company morale. 

In his book “The New Economics,” Dr Deming states that “It is wrong to suppose that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it – a costly myth.” This is contrary to the popular belief that one can manage only with the help of measurement. The obsession with measurement has led managers to resort to the process of numerical rating of people where it does not justifiably apply. While physical measurement uses specific objective methods and tools to accomplish the task, the job of assessing people is subjective, based on what the manager remembers, what the manager’s mood is at the time of the assessment, etc. You get the idea. 

The problem is not that we need a more accurate method of measurement. Rather, we need to understand that the system of measurement itself is flawed. What is the purpose of assessment,whether in school, college, or at the workplace? If the purpose is to improve learning and performance, then how does rating and ranking help achieve this objective. If our aim is to get students and workers to do better, would it not be more effective to provide more explanatory feedback which would give them specific corrective actions to take? In most of the rating and ranking systems we find such feedback woefully missing. Instead, what we see is a cookie cutter system of measurement and assessment which does not provide any benefit either to the person assessed nor to the institution. 

We have created assessment systems which work contrary to the basic aim of the organisations. In educational institutes, the focus should be on improving the learning experience, not rating and ranking. Instead of the emphasis that is placed on evaluation, there needs to be a stronger focus on how well the student is able to think and apply the concepts covered in class. In companies, we need to move away from creating internal competition among employees. The need of the hour is teamwork, not competition. There is enough competition in the outside world. Apart from the human cost of rating and ranking people these numbers just do not add up.----INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)