
Can software leaders use metrics without damaging culture? - davetwichell
https://linearb.io/blog/how-software-leaders-can-use-metrics-without-damaging-culture
======
wrnr
I've been stuck working on a problem for the last two weeks, I know this by
the lingering feeling of dread, and anyone can tell by the empty squares in my
commit heat-map. How can metrics help me make progress, except to tell me to
try something new: Read papers, study similar solutions, reach out to other
that can help. Nothings has worked so far, but it does not deter me.

I did learn a curious fact about the productivity of the most prolific
writers, musicians, comedians and other creative professions. Count the number
of words written, notes composed and new jokes, then divide those by a
reasonable number of working hours, let's say 5 days a week with 8 hours of
work over the productive period in their life.

Unfortunately, I can't find the exact numbers anymore, but it was staggeringly
low, something in the vein of 1 word written per hour, 1 note composed per
day, and one new joke per week.

Sure there are things to be learned from data, just not always what fits the
agenda of the managerial class.

~~~
darkerside
Yeah I'm gonna need a citation on that one Chief

~~~
darkerside
> Unfortunately, I can't find the exact numbers anymore, but it was
> staggeringly low, something in the vein of 1 word written per hour, 1 note
> composed per day, and one new joke per week.

This is so ridiculous as to be offensive. Bring the downvotes, I don't care.

------
PragmaticPulp
If you skipped straight to the HN comments, the article is worth reading. The
author makes some thoughtful suggestions and points out some common pitfalls.

Although recently, I've noticed another reason to tread lightly with metrics:
Metrics have become a highly-charged topic among developers who consume a lot
of Twitter, Reddit, HN and other developer chatter. The cynical response to
any metrics tracking program is to claim that they will be gamed, or abused,
or misused by management. Once your team has adopted this cynical mindset,
they're unlikely to see metrics any other way, so they get to work gaming and
abusing the system.

In my experience, getting as much team buy-in as possible is the key to making
metrics a success. It's healthy to invite the teams to an open discussion
about what metrics they think should be tracked. Give them an opportunity to
openly discuss objections, and make a valid effort to acknowledge and work
with their suggestions as you develop your metrics program. Ideally, you would
find one or two metrics that benefit the team members directly rather than the
company or management.

It's important that developers can see the metrics as an open target to help
them excel within the company, rather than a punitive measure or something
that management can use as a substitute for real engagement. When team metrics
decline, use that opportunity to open a discussion with the team. If you let
metrics become a punitive measure or a guide for who gets promoted or fired,
they will absolutely be gamed to death.

~~~
friendlybus
I'd like to see evidence that cynicism about metrics leads to abuse and gaming
rather than just leaving. That perspective seems cynical in itself.

In my experience metrics make no difference on success, the dynamics of the
team and the workflow have been set up for success or failure before you
started measuring it. Metrics should never be a target, once a measure becomes
a target it ceases to be a good measure.

Measures should be used to give you awareness of time and quantity. Quality as
efficiency is inaccurate, it ignores the properties of the work created. Being
aware of time and quantity gives managers of large empires the ability to
summarize the work of many individuals into a few measures. This kills the
point of individually excelling and creates the grounds for union largess. In
a few years everybody realizes that the work is not created equal and you
create an incentive for real quality minded people to started ranking
everybody and allowing room for clearing the bottom 10%.

The same ideas in the article are pushed across youtube, across HN and the
internet culture at large, in time with each other. It's disappointing to see
so many smart people walk in mental lock step with one another. It devalues
the individual contribution and shows there is little left for the majority of
these content creators to say that hasn't been said elsewhere.

~~~
notarapper
Saying that the team dynamics have set up for success or failure on the get go
sheds light only on teams that are on the positive side of that statement.
What if my team is on the negative side? Should I just accept the loss and
continue to a new project?

I agree that the dynamics of a dev team are extremely important. But how can
one drive to get better without understanding their current status?

In my personal experience, there should be an open conversation between the
team on deciding what to measure and what does the team want to improve on
even if the team already has good dynamics. My moral as a developer was always
up when my team got props for something, because I was a part of that success.

I think the focus needs to be on the team as a whole, instead of getting
dragged into a comparisons game. The developers should be aware that this
isn't an individuals race.

If you work in a large organization then you will still be measured even if
you're team doesn't take the measurements on their own. Good metrics can only
benefit you since you can control the conversation with your own data instead
of data from a corporate figure that only looks at you as another row in their
spreadsheet.

~~~
friendlybus
It is a race of individuals when you see people on HN posting about making
hundreds of thousands for doing the job of multiple people. Sure not everybody
wants to do that. What is the point in hobbling those that do by forcing them
to fit a measure?

The individual seeing with metrics is not the action taking mind. The person
who sees through metrics is a heart hidden behind a corporate body. The heart
cannot imagine greater heights, it can only regulate flow. Blood pressure
spikes get eliminated for "normality".

This lack of thought and focus on flow eliminates morals and devalues changing
forms and structures in favour of a mindless gigantism. Corporations don't
change individuals, they lump responsibility for failure upon me's and you's.
The corporation's goal is to grow the flow at human cost. I among many would
prefer not become one of Howard's humanoids (Network 1976) and would instead
prefer to go out on the stage of individual achievement, if at all. We are all
vulnerable to the snakes that encircle and poison hearts. Ideas go in one side
of the heart and come out the other side dead.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I don't think so. Basically, with metrics you are saying that you need to
reduce a multidimensional value down to a single dimension. In addition,
metrics are open to gaming. Take for example cycle time:

>Cycle Time: If you can only have 1 metric, make it cycle time. Cycle time
measures the amount of time from work started to work delivered; in other
words, the amount of time from first commit to production release. Cycle time
is important because it is a proxy for how optimized your team is.

If cycle time is being optimized for, then eventually, someone on the team
will discover that if they make an "experimental prototype" on their laptop
before checking it in, their cycle time goes down a lot.

There really is no substitute for an involved manager, however that does not
scale, and so you go to metrics. But, I would argue, you have already damaged
the culture.

~~~
freepor
You’d never take a team wide metric like cycle time (which is a function of
the whole company) and use it to evaluate a single person. There shouldn’t be
any benefit to an individual to have a low cycle time.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> You’d never take a team wide metric like cycle time (which is a function of
> the whole company) and use it to evaluate a single person

In theory, yes. But in practice, I bet there are a lot of people here who have
stories of a metric that was supposed to only be used team wide, but was used
for evaluating an individual.

~~~
mvpmvh
team metrics show the team is underperforming? team lead, CTO, etc. gets
canned

~~~
notarapper
Honestly I don't think you can avoid getting measured, even if the person
measuring only does it in their head. If you feel you're doing a good job than
it's best for you to measure that on your own and show proof for that instead
of your boss relating on their instincts... Also if you feel you can do better
than it's probably best that you understand why in order to improve that, so
your boss won't have the need to let you go. Everyone's looking at the one
negative side but there are tons of positives that apply to a large percentage
of the worforce

------
dasil003
Visible metrics that tie to company, product or infrastructure health are
highly useful if they are relatively objective and not subject to gaming. But
tying them to individual performance is always the wrong thing in knowledge
work; not only is it dehumanizing but it also fails to account for the
subjectivity in any creative profession where people with the same job title
work on radically different things.

As a manager there are some individual metrics that could serve as a “smell”
to investigate but you shouldn’t publish those metrics or ever use them in
communications or as reasoning for any decision.

------
remote_phone
If you use metrics to evaluate performance, expect EVERYTHING to be gamed
around them.

My friend at Facebook says that everything is based on metrics. So people will
ask others to give them a “thanks” in the Performance system for Mundane
things like going to a meeting. Numbers of reviews that are commented on are
also a metric, so people will +1 a review.

This happens everywhere, not just Facebook. Whatever metrics you employ will
incentivize your employees to target those. If you value LOC then those will
be targeted. If you value number of checkins, then those will be targeted. And
that’s how it should be because that’s what you as a manager are defining to
your employees is what is important and valued.

So if you do choose metrics then be aware that it will change the culture.

~~~
logicchains
That's the lovely thing about working in HFT: can make the PnL the metric, as
it's much easier to connect work to PnL impact, and then everybody is working
towards increasing an actually useful metric.

------
loopz
When leaders start micromanaging and overreaching, there's really no more
autonomy and the responsibilities for outcomes are taken away from the
individual. Notice: This can happen at the management-level as well!

Similar with metrics, it becomes a diversion to attend to waste (extra efforts
to produce quality data), while removing autonomy and opportunities.

Those metrics that do work, are owned by people themselves, and are used as
tools, not as a whip, carrot or other games of diversions. As tools, the
metrics can be changed or removed, as seen necessary.

------
nhumrich
Sounds like a lot of people in this thread are confusing metrics with
measures. A metric is just that. Its just a number. It means nothing except
giving you historical context over time.

A measure is when you expect a specific quota or compare a metric against
another.

Goodharts law, "a metric that becomes a measure ceases to be a good metric".

In other words, once its a measure, its gamed, and useless. So how do you
prevent this? Let people tell their own story. Have metrics, no quotas. Dont
compare teams. Dont compare individuals. Have metrics, lots of them.
Preferably enough thats its impossible to game all of them. Only let the full
picture tell the story, never get too focused on one specific metric.

This applies to everything. Too focused on ARR? Guess what, you will make
terrible deals at a discounted rate, have high churn, and bad customer
support. Too focused on churn? You will hold on to customers you should let
go. You have to always look at the bigger picture.

Only metrics, no measures.

------
kochikame
I think metrics are very useful but only when used properly. A lack of metrics
means we can't always see what's going on and goals may be unclear; an
overreliance on metrics is gameable and too impersonal.

Laos, as the article indicates to some extent, what you measure becomes what
matters. As a manager, the metrics you create will (to an extent) help to
define what kind of team you run and build.

------
drewcoo
What is this "culture" thing in the article? It's undefined although
apparently there's a danger of it being bad. Things can "impact" it. It can be
grown and it can be damaged. I'm left thinking it may be a god or it may even
be a skin rash.

What are they selling? Oh, project management software.

~~~
Scarblac
A try: the set of circumstances that cause your current employees to be
motivated and productive.

If you currently have employees that have a lot of freedom, responsibility and
little oversight and who thrive on that, then introducing more formal metrics
can make them feel their work is becoming less fun and they become less
motivated. But other employees like clear structure and formal methods and
they'd welcome such things.

Usually the company has one style of management from the start, and people who
like working under that style self-selected over time. That gives you your
"culture", and changing it means you may make your company's management style
less of a good fit for its employees.

------
airocker
No according to mythical man month.

------
gHosts
When someone asks me to measure something.... I instantly say the answer is
42.... what are you going to do about it?

------
musicale
No.

------
rubicks
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

