4 ms·
Argument from "fuck you, I got mine", basically. Notice that the article doesn't claim the tools don't "work", merely that if they work it's because some layer
by comp_throw7 2y ago
Argument from "fuck you, I got mine", basically. Notice that the article doesn't claim the tools don't "work", merely that if they work it's because some layer of management is incompetent (maybe sufficient, but not necessary), and if so the company deserves to fail (what?).
- necovek 2y agoIt's actually even stronger than that: in the very last paragraph, the concern is that you'll uncover slackers and make enemies. I really don't think you can measure output and understand value for anyone but the most junior of engineers who basically need to churn out code to be valuable in the short term (and that's for those who do not have a questioning mindset to understand why they need to build what they are asked to). 6 months in and it becomes useless even for them as they acquire domain knowledge.
- KaiserPro 2y agoI don't share that view. To me the article reads that simplistic metrics do no accurately assess performance of employees. Managers need to work out what their reports are working on, and base an opinion on performance using more than just "number of tasks closed" etc. by creating these simplistic metrics, it means that the management chain has a false sense of what make the company tick. That confidence is the rot, not the poor performers. Simply because they do not actually know who the poor performers are.