Should managers gauge employee performance by getting to know them, instead of "by the numbers"? The answer is both yes and no Dear Bob …I’ve read a lot about how to measure employee performance, including your writing on the subject [for example, “Out with objectives, in with technique?” Keep the Joint Running, 3/30/2009].As an alternative, shouldn’t a manager get to know their underlings? Shouldn’t the manager know if a specific underling is just getting by (either through complacency or through incompetence)? [ Find out what Bob has to say when the tables are turned: “When you’ve set the pattern with an employee, you’ve got to be tough to change it” | Get sage IT career advice from Bob Lewis’ Advice Line newsletter. ]I feel like a lot of corporate America has lost the grassroots sort of management because of how large the corporation gets. If your car (corporation) breaks down, you get it fixed. Is it the whole car that is broken? More than likely it is a part or a few parts that are causing the brokenness or the bad performance.I realize that there are company politics, etc. that can muddy the water, but certainly a manager can work around those things to accomplish their objective. As an example, I used to work in a warehouse. I had just unloaded a crate of entertainment centers (20-30), each weighing about 75 pounds. I had worked so hard and fast that I decided to sit for a second. Of course that was when the owner of that branch walked in — when I was sitting down. However, he didn’t fire me. He knew (from watching the true end result) that sitting down wasn’t what I did all the time.I suppose the other thing muddying the water is a manager being truly honest with him/herself. The answer should make itself clear if you actually sit down and research it (no matter how much bogus input you get).Used car salesmen usually have bad reputations for cheating people. As such, most people don’t go to a used car salesman to buy a car (lest they get ripped off), even if one tells you he is cutting the price in half, etc. In other words, even though the used car salesman is giving you (seemingly) good input, you know from reputation that it is not the case. – WonderingDear Wondering …“Underling?” Meaning no offense, old friend, I think this is even worse than “subordinate” regarding the tone it sets. But never mind that. To answer your question, sure, and it isn’t good enough.It’s a bit like what wise attorneys will tell you about contracts, which is that you don’t write them for when things are going well. Contracts are for when a difficulty has arisen.Likewise, employee measurement: When the manager and employee agree with the manager’s subjective sense of the employee’s performance, there’s no need for measurement at that level. It’s when they disagree that it’s handy for the manager to have something objective to use to help the employee understand the difference between his/her performance and what the manager expects from a strong employee. Not that I’m disagreeing with you. There’s a limit to what you can accomplish with formal measurement, just as there’s a limit to what you can accomplish with a map. Just as the map gives you important information about the territory it covers while leaving out far more than it includes, systems of measurement give you important information while also leaving out a lot that matters — the nuances, to use a soon-to-be-overused word.As for the used car salesman, it’s a great example of where measurement helps. Sites like BizRate and PriceGrabber (and eBay, although last I looked its rating system was tainted by the threat of retaliation) provide customer ratings for vendors. That can help a lot when you’re trying to find someone reputable, especially in fields where they’re relatively scarce.– Bob Technology Industry