Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm not a mathematician, hence why I'm here. I would like some help with some references please so as I can prove a point.

Now, in work we are being assessed on our quality of work using the bell curve and our achievement to date. I'm pretty certain that this isn't really fair as some managers give people the correct amount of coaching and development time, some don't bother. My manager hasn't and consequently some of the metrics on which I am marked i feel are skewed.

for example I have had approx 50% of the amount of coaching and development time, where as another member of my team has actually had almost 200% of the amount of coaching time that the company commits to us.

Basically I want to show that just placing people on a bell curve without taking into account the other factors that affect their performance, ie. the amount of time people get to be coached and developed.

Can someone explain to me how to illustrate this point to them? That blindly measuring against each others performance while not taking into consideration the other variables is pretty inconclusive.

Sorry if the tags are not appropriate, as I said not a mathemetician

share|improve this question
This question is completely impossible to understand. What exactly do you mean by "being assessed on our quality of work using the bell curve and our achievement to date"? You also don't explain what is meant by "give people the correct amount of coaching and development time", and what that has to do with assessment and/or bell curves. –  Henning Makholm Dec 7 '11 at 17:11
maybe this question (even rephrased more clearly) fits more Statistics SE –  Ilya Dec 7 '11 at 17:17
Okay well I work in a call centre, we get call scores based on our contact with customers, based on did the customer get all the right information and did we deal with their enquiry quickly. these are subjective. but we are all compared to each other as if there are no other variables. the things we are measured on such as sales and call scoring are being compared to each other to see who gets bonuses, but I don't believe this is fair when we dont all have the same level of coaching. its comparing two things fairly as surely people that have had more coaching and development time improve –  benny Dec 7 '11 at 17:17
If anyone can word this better and gets what I mean please comment as I said not a mathematician. –  benny Dec 7 '11 at 17:22
I don't see what this has to do with bell curves or standard deviations (or statistics, or mathematics). If two people have different amounts of training, then it's just common sense to expect them to have different levels of performance. But if you want something quantitative - something like, 83 per cent more training guarantees one standard deviation better performance - then you are going to need heaps of data, and a statistician to interpret it. –  Gerry Myerson Dec 7 '11 at 23:09

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.