【Hacker News搬运】问责制衰退

hackernews

Title: Accountability sinks

问责制衰退

Text:

Url: https://aworkinglibrary.com/writing/accountability-sinks

很抱歉，由于我无法直接访问外部网站，包括您提供的链接，因此我无法直接抓取和分析该网站的内容。

但是，如果您能够提供该网页的文本内容或者其摘要，我可以帮助您进行内容分析和总结。如果您需要将非中文内容翻译成中文，我可以使用在线翻译工具或者内置的翻译功能来帮助您。

请提供需要分析的内容，或者您可以描述一下网页的主题和关键信息，这样我也可以尝试为您提供一个总结。

Post by: l0b0

Comments:

alilleybrinker: Cathy O'Neil's "Weapons of Math Destruction" (2016, Penguin Random House) is a good companion to this concept, covering the "accountability sink" from the other side of those constructing or overseeing systems.Cathy argues that the use of algorithm in some contexts permits a new scale of harmful and unaccountable systems that ought to be reigned in.<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/241363/weapons-of-math-destruction-by-cathy-oneil/" rel="nofollow">https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/241363/weapons-of-m...</a>

alilleybrinker: Cathy O；Neil；s&quot；数学毁灭性武器&quot；（2016年，企鹅兰登书屋）是这一概念的好伴侣，涵盖了&quot；问责制水槽&quot；与那些构建或监督系统的人相比 Cathy认为，在某些情况下使用算法允许出现新规模的有害和不负责任的系统，这些系统应该被统治。<a href=“https:”www.penguinrandomhouse.com“books”241363“Cathy oneil的数学毁灭武器”rel=“nofollow”>https:”&#x2F；www.penguinrandomhouse.com；书籍；241363；武器-</a>

aeturnum: When I was a grad student in STS I was considering doing a project on how software can function as an "agency adjuster" where individuals come to bear the risks of something (generally an economic transaction) and the majority of the profits go to the owner of the software. In many ways Uber & related services are about allowing individuals to take on very low-probability high-acuity downside risk for a small fee.

aeturnum: 当我还是STS的研究生时，我正在考虑做一个关于软件如何作为一个“；机构理算员&quot；个人承担某些事情的风险（通常是经济交易），大部分利润归软件所有者所有。在很多方面，优步和；相关服务旨在允许个人以较低的费用承担极低概率的高风险下行风险。

TZubiri: I was thinking about something similar today. Sometimes accountability can be a blocker, for example for hiring.If you have 1 candidate, it's an easy call, if you have 3 candidates, you evaluate in less than a week. If you have 200 candidates, you need to hire somebody to sift through the resumes, have like 5 rounds on interview and everybody chiming in, whoever pulls the trigger or recommends someone is now on the hook for their performance.You can't evaluate all the information and make an informed decision, the optimal strategy is to flip a 100 sided die, but no one is going to be on the hook for that.

TZubiri: 我今天在想类似的事情。有时问责制可能会成为阻碍因素，例如招聘。如果你有一个候选人，那么它；这很容易，如果你有3个候选人，你可以在不到一周的时间内进行评估。如果你有200名候选人，你需要雇人筛选简历，面试大约5轮，每个人都会插话，无论谁扣动扳机或推荐某人，现在都要为他们的表现负责 您可以；如果不评估所有信息并做出明智的决定，最佳策略是翻转一个100面模具，但没有人会因此而陷入困境。

skybrian: I find that the word "accountability" almost always obscures what's being talked about. If we remove it, we can instead talk about understanding and feedback:As organizations become more complex, it's difficult to understand the consequences of many high-level decisions. Unless great effort is made to gather feedback, it won't happen.Not only that: the lack of immediate, human communication results in one-way feedback mechanisms, like suggestion boxes and surveys. Many companies clearly want to make this work, because we're constantly prompted and sometimes paid to fill out surveys. But the result is survey fatigue.The person giving feedback needs to be reassured (by people, not machines) that their feedback matters, or they won't be bothered to do it. Often, it's socially awkward to give negative feedback, so people don't. And often, the employees directly on the scene have incentive to encourage customers to avoid negativity when they fill out surveys.One way to show that feedback matters is to respond to complaints with some sort of assistance. In the example in the article, that's a voucher. Perhaps somewhere in the organization, that voucher counts as a cost, but it's pretty unsatisfying.In some organizations, managers are encouraged to work at the support desk occasionally as a more immediate way to understand what's going on. (I remember reading about how Craig Newmark would do this for his website.)

skybrian: 我发现&quot；问责制&quot；几乎总是掩盖了什么；正在被谈论。如果我们删除它，我们可以转而谈论理解和反馈：随着组织变得更加复杂，它；很难理解许多高层决策的后果。除非付出巨大努力收集反馈，否则它赢了；不会发生的 不仅如此：缺乏即时的人际沟通会导致单向反馈机制，如建议箱和调查。许多公司显然希望实现这一目标，因为我们；他们不断地被提示填写调查问卷，有时甚至被付钱。但结果是调查疲劳 给出反馈的人需要（由人而不是机器）确信他们的反馈很重要，否则他们就赢了；不必费心去做；给出负面反馈在社交上很尴尬，所以人们不会；t.而且，直接在现场的员工在填写调查问卷时，往往有动机鼓励客户避免负面情绪 证明反馈很重要的一种方法是在某种帮助下回应投诉。在文章中的示例中；这是一张代金券。也许在组织的某个地方，该代金券算作成本，但它；这相当不令人满意 在一些组织中，鼓励管理人员偶尔在支持台工作，作为了解什么是最直接的方式；正在进行中。（我记得读过克雷格·纽马克如何为他的网站做这件事。）

cj: This article seems to redefine the word "accountability". In the first sentence:> In The Unaccountability Machine, Dan Davies argues that organizations form “accountability sinks,” structures that absorb or obscure the consequences of a decision such that no one can be held directly accountable for it.Why not just call it "no-consequence sinks"?It's somewhat of an oxymoron to say "accountability" isn't working because there's no consequence. Without any consequence there is no accountability. So why call it accountability in the first place?This article is describing something along the lines of "shared accountability" which, in project management, is a well known phenomenon: if multiple people are accountable for something, then no one is accountable.If someone is accountable for something that they can't do fully themselves, they are still accountable for setting up systems (maybe even people to help) to scale their ability to remain accountable for the thing.

cj: 这篇文章似乎重新定义了&quot；问责制&quot；。在第一句话中：&gt；Dan Davies在《不负责任的机器》一书中指出，组织形成了“问责水槽”，这种结构吸收或掩盖了决策的后果，因此没有人可以直接对其负责；后果不会消失&quot 它；说“这有点自相矛盾”；问责制&quot；不是；不工作，因为那里；这没什么大不了的。没有任何后果，就没有问责制。那么，为什么一开始就称之为问责制呢 本文所描述的内容大致如下：；共同问责制&quot；在项目管理中，这是一个众所周知的现象：如果多个人对某事负责，那么就没有人负责 如果有人对他们能做到的事情负责；虽然他们自己没有完全做到，但他们仍然有责任建立系统（甚至可能有人来帮助），以扩大他们对事情负责的能力。