Why do most top performers have the highest count of commits and pull requests?

For my current project, merging bad code typically means breaking a bunch of regression test suites for any coworkers that cut their branches at the wrong time. In more nefarious outcomes, it means a delayed software version release and, potentially, damaged UAV hardware at our test site.

For my previous project, merging bad code could have resulted in someone losing control of a fully drive by wire car in a closed parking lot or test track. That's what big red buttons are for!

For my project before that, some of my code was involved in handling literally every single sensor and actuator on a rocket and the space capsule on top of it. A subtle bug that slipped through to production could have been rather serious indeed.

If I've got bunch of problems, I'll work on the easiest ones first, saving the hardest for last. This clears my mind from the drag from the easier problems, and as a side effect I wind up committing more.

There's no particular correlation between how hard a problem is to solve vs how much time it takes to solve them. So hit the easy ones first and make your users happy!

Those who make a lot of commits are not top performers, they are mostly engineers who are overly concerned with their 'optics'; they are engineers who are good at projecting themselves as 'top performers' but if you actually look at the results of their work a few years down the line, you will see that they are in fact low performers of the worst kind because they tend to add a lot of unnecessary complexity and technical debt because they don't think through things enough and just implement.

I'm absolutely shocked to learn that people are falling for this.

Committing your source code to the company git makes it very easy for others to point at you later, if things break. And it's pretty much impossible to undo once someone else has pulled your change.

In my opinion, many top performers are simply people who do what needs to be done, and when it's needed.

On my current team, I'm considered to be the most thorough code reviewer. Folk usually thank me rather than scorn me, though. Some are afraid to send me their PRs not because they fear my feedback, but because they think reviewing their code will take up too much of my time. Reviewing code thoroughly doesn't take much time at all, though, if you make it a habit. If it's a bug, I explain my concern and suggest a fix. If it's a style nit, I link to the relevant style guide section. If it's a suggestion or personal preference, I explicitly say that, write out my rationale, then offer to chat more. If it's a weak suggestion, I tell them right off the bat that I'm fine either way. If it's a strong suggestion, I try to give them an "early out" by suggesting they simply add a // TODO comment. I'll let a coworker get away with murder as long as they leave a TODO comment.

For new team members that send me a PR for the first time, I typically send a message at the start describing what they should expect. That helps a lot, because everyone's first few PRs are going to be rough until they've gotten up to speed on the existing team's expectations.

I will say that there are some engineers that just don't take technical feedback well. When they join an existing team, they can be stubborn and refuse to adapt to the established culture. Instead, they either misinterpret criticism as personal attacks, or get frustrated and insist that the team conform to their preferences right off the bat. Team culture can and should evolve over time, but it requires respect and understanding of the status quo. It's possible for an open minded engineer to join a team, embrace its current culture, then radically change it all over the course of a few months. It's possible for a close minded engineer to not get more than a dozen PRs approved over the course of a year. Not to say that such engineers are good or bad one way or another, but rather folk should seek out projects that are compatible with their personality.