I agree with the spirit that these metrics shouldn't be used to evaluate employees, but if we expect managers to know what's going on, they do need some signal. Metrics are one of those signals. It's the manager's responsibility to layer on other signals to form conclusions.
In other words, just because the metrics themselves aren't sufficient, that doesn't mean we should take them away completely.
They need some signal, and metrics are not one of those signals.
The metrics tell you one thing, but how to interpret it requires you to know what people are actually doing. And if you do know that then you don't need the metrics.
Add to that, I don't think I know anyone that could be trusted to not misinterpret the metrics. It is a great way to reinforce what you believe, you can take your gut feeling and finding a way to see it in the data. But that isn't helpful either.
I think the idea is that if a manager is just like... in the meetings with team members or also just ambiently participating in the work then they'll know what is happening.
I don't need a metrics dashboard to know what's going on with my spouse. Feels pretty normal for a manager to have a decent idea of what's going on with their reports.
> I don't need a metrics dashboard to know what's going on with my spouse.
You'd be surprised.
It's extremely common for both spouses to think they're doing 75% of the housework. Resulting in a lot of resentment.
Then after couples' therapy they agree to actually make a list. And the truth is revealed, and you can actually figure out how to make it balanced.
It's extremely in common in therapy for both partners to insist they know what's going on with their spouse, when the reality is they don't at all, and therapy is about actually seeing the other person's POV. And believe it or not, metrics can help with that -- particularly around time spent and money spent on things that are obligations vs. recreation.
And it's not so different with managers. I've had managers who just simply disliked one report and didn't think they worked hard enough, and just liked another report and always assumed they could trust their output. With no correlation to the employees' actual performance. Metrics help correct our blind spots.
I think the argument is that if a manager is so far removed from the work being done, that they don’t even know who’s doing what, than they’re a figurehead anyway.
Yeah, I feel the discussion around this is usually "random metrics can be gamed and may not reflect true value of a person's contributions". But neither does unmeasurable gut feeling!
If you use done tickets or whatever metric to _determine_ value that's a bad idea.
If you use it to ask questions or confirm impressions it can be useful.
In other words, just because the metrics themselves aren't sufficient, that doesn't mean we should take them away completely.