Can software leaders use metrics without damaging culture?

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.