Sometimes I use the analogy of the good, the bad and the ultra when talking abut employees for someone to get a visual representation of a situation. If we see good employees as those who do their job to a satisfactory level, bad employees as those who do not and the ultra as those who go above and beyond, most people are able to very quickly identify people that fit into the good and bad category but, the ultra is more difficult.
The reason for this is quite simple within an organisation (especially a large one) because they are generally set up like a production line where a contract covers the tasks expected. Completion or incompletion is relatively easy to see and, this is also where most key performance indicators will evaluate.
The problem is that the most valuable employees in the organisation act in areas that are often outside of the scope of their contract which means, there is no evaluation taking place in those areas which usually means, no greater reward for going above and beyond.
This gap is further compounded because often where the ultra employee is providing additional value, their direct colleagues and manager are not in those areas. This means that even though another person, manager or department benefits, the responsible manager doesn't even know it is happening.
These people bring a great deal of value to the organisation but are often overlooked when it comes to various remuneration measures. In time, many of the valuable employees will reduce their additional work or move on as they end up feeling unappreciated and disincentivized by the system.
I was thinking about this the other day while talking with a client and I was wondering how much of that happens on Steem. How often are people who are actually adding a great deal of value overlooked because they happen to be adding it in circles that are unmonitored by those who handle rewards, those with stake?
What I mean by this is that there is already quite a great deal of variety of content and value streams in the Steem ecosystem but for the most part, the highest staked people are generally concerned with their own interest areas, their own departments.
Due to the Starting point of the system, the first people onto the platform and, what kinds of people invested in, there is obviously going to be a narrower view of content they are interested in which is often on the development side of things. This is why @ocd, @curie, @steemstem and similar are so important from a content support perspective because they can unearth individual pieces.
However, even though they do a good job, that isn't good enough for the long-term views of building up a middle class of users who are able to support more widely. Essentially, the people who are the most valuable to have in that pool are the ultra users, the ones who go above and beyond. The problem is, who are they?
If you look at the blog only, that rarely tells enough and even though a blog may be very good and even highly rewarded, it may not actually bring much value to the platform itself. If you only look at voting behavior, that doesn't tell a clear picture either. Part of the issue is that so much of Steem is actually not on Steem, it is in the conversations off Steem, the sharing of ideas the questions asked, the people supported.
It is similar to the compartmentalized department problem in a large organization where no one person has a complete view of the entire Steem life of someone. This creates certain challenges and further complexities on top also as someone who may be of value in one area might be harmful in another.
People tend to judge on what they see which is just the way things work but, there are too many layers for many people to get a clear enough view of the situation plus, further complexity.
What is a bad actor on Steem? Sure, there are the plagiarists and the spammers who are easy to spot but, what about the community accounts who are pushing other platforms or, witnesses with secret alts they upvote heavily? Flaggers? Self-voters? If Haejin is classified a bad actor, why isn't @steemcleaners cleaning him for spam, self-voting 10 times a day and whatever is happening with the rancho deal? This is an issue isn't it, there is no definition of what qualifies as bad and it is up to the community to decide but, the community is a little lethargic and a lot unsure themselves.
This goes for good actors too doesn't it? Is good quality content enough if there is no comment engagement, is not-self voting noble if one has powered down nearly everything so the vote has no value? With so much complexity, so much going o that is unseen and so much confusion over what is beneficial, harmful or neutral on the platform, it is very difficult to know who is good.
This means that essentially, the people who would be classed as Ultras are unknowable since there will not be a way to see all of what they do and even if there was, there wouldn't likely be a consensus on whether what they do is good or bad.
It is an interesting ecosystem really where there is no definitive answers on some fundamental challenges facing Steem. I know of some people who are seen as community leaders that are much less so and, some who are seen as not who are working very hard for the community. Which one gets supported, the public or the behind the scenes persona?
To get the behind the scenes support requires being behind the scenes with the right people and to get public support means to have a public position that is worth supporting. I was saying the other day that those with influence with staked users should throw them community accounts that deserve more support because there is just no way the staked users can find them because when they do happen to be on Steem, they are going to be in their own interest areas.
There are some very hardworking people here on and off the platform and it would be great if in time there was a better pathway of discovery of them so that they would be able to do what they do without having to also continually chase support in order to do it. It would be more of a job within the community with less time spent working where they aren't very valuable.
This is part of the problem in some way here at the moment and one that would be largely solved by a broad middle-class and that is to be somewhat successful, someone has to be able to be pretty good at several areas that they may not necessarily be strong at. For example, a great developer might not be a great networker or, a brilliant artist might not be able to advertise themselves well enough to get support.
Having the middle-class network will mean that not only are there more active eyes across a wider variety of topics but, there is also an active network that will be able to connect talent to where it needs to be for support. It is the friend of a friend network.
What enough of this this will mean is that in time, those who are good actors will have more support and those who are bad will increasingly feel the pressure to change or be squeezed out of the system. No one will have to define what is good or bad, the network will do its job and will support accounts they can trust and avoid those they can't.
Overall, the platform will be a healthier ecosystem where there would be less need for any individual to have to have all the skills necessary meaning, everyone can do more of what they enjoy and where they want to learn. All of this takes time to build the infrastructure and network for but, there is not time like the present to start and the longer it takes, the more painful it will become.
[ a Steem original ]