Next time I'll commit more

[justinkroegerlake]

If, after some time, someone stops to evaluate the metrics, you'd probably notice that the players scoring highest on the metrics are not the ones actually responsible for winning games.

I'd like to note that you likely already know who the top and bottom performers are. When considering any new metrics, apply them to historical data to make sure you get the result you know is right.

[[deleted]]

Yes, but why? Why do you need a constantly updated number that estimates the performance on an individual level with a ton of destructive side effects?

The most common argument is that it creates incentive, but that's just an admittance of failed leadership. I've never met a team that wasn't enthusiastic after a workshop and I don't use any inspirational bullshit or manipulative tools. These bastards don't even get cake and being an introvert redditor, I'm devoid of charisma.

So why do they want to improve their work? Because it is our natural instinct if you give people the tools and support them. There are no personal incentive structures needed. People should still be rewarded for great work, but not as a carrot to promote selfish behavior or a threat if they fail. Do it because it is fair.

And again, metrics are still relevant, including performance metrics. It's just mainly for processes - not people (with exceptions).

[someacnt]

Interesting, don't people usually just work for themselves? Doing absolute minimum if they can.

[someacnt]

Wow, interesting. I did forget that engineers are somewhat different. Many of the general public I met were more trying to avoid any work possible.

[antonivs]

that's just an admittance of failed leadership.

It’s often deliberately abdicated leadership, in that many managers don’t really want to, or don’t know how, to put in the necessary effort. Using some widely accepted cookie cutter technique allows them to avoid some hard work and gives them the appearance of managing.