Comment by crazygringo
1 month ago
I agree with a couple other comments here -- this is a bizarre model where one programmer does no individual work and does all the helping.
A much healthier situation, to me, is one where Tim does stories like everybody else, and when people need help they ask the group and whoever is the best at that thing helps them -- or whoever hasn't helped in a while.
Surely there are easier stories for those who need the most help, and Tim should be taking on the hardest stories by himself?
Or if you really do have an insanely lopsided team where everyone is straight out of school with no experience, and a single super-senior dev, then... shouldn't they just be a special kind of team lead who is expected to mentor full-time and not be subject to metrics?
The post here is not a good example at all of metrics failing to capture work. In reality, it is surfacing the fact that either Tim's job title and metric are totally wrong for him individually, or else that Tim is failing to contribute the hardest code, and the team is failing to distribute the "helping" workload. In both cases, the metric is working as intended, and it is surfacing something very important than needs to be fixed. (Remember, "fire Tim" is not the only possible action you can take because of a metric.)
> when people need help they ask the group and whoever is the best at that thing helps them -- or whoever hasn't helped in a while.
I agree this would be healthy for an organization, but I don’t think that is often possible. In this example, the organization is clearly NOT tracking mentor activity. So, anyone who helps someone else, is getting zero recognition for it.
I work with a lot of people where ‘ruthless prioritization’ is considered a good quality. That means no one gets any help. All taking. No giving. Pure selfishness really.
Back to the example. Tim is stepping up and filling in a major gap for the company. People need help. He has decided to go against the grain and help. However, instead of doing it with the help of leadership, he is just doing what needs to be done and it almost cost him his job.
Frankly, I identify with Tim. I love helping people figure out problems. Be it build env issues, failing tests, or some design gap. I help people all the time on top of my other work. While my immediate manager knows that and is good with it, upper leadership doesn’t care and just wants everyone to act like what they are working on is more important then what their peers are working on. Ruthless prioritizing is a seed of toxicity.
I got a bit off topic… How to encourage helping peers and juniors when helping isn’t tracked and isn’t rewarded or encouraged? How do you maintain a healthy culture despite all the metrics?
> So, anyone who helps someone else, is getting zero recognition for it.
Where I've worked, this is what 360 peer review during performance reviews is.
If your colleagues all say you're super-helpful, that's part of what it takes to get promoted.
If your colleagues all say you're selfish and never help out, this is something that needs to be addressed immediately.
It's a metric like any other, it's just collected twice a year rather than bimonthly, and it's qualitative rather than quantitative. But it's analyzed at the same time and given lots of weight when it comes to promotions.
>this is a bizarre model where one programmer does no individual work and does all the helping.
Sounds like a lead or manager. He definitely works like a lead in spirit. Cheaper for the company to delineate it like this.
>Surely there are easier stories for those who need the most help, and Tim should be taking on the hardest stories by himself?
difficulties don't signify priorities. Maybe all the hard stories are low priority. Maybe the energy is focused on onboarding newer hires. Maybe there was a semi-looming headline and getting others' tasks done was more important than his individual module (or perhaps he was ahead of pace already).
I can see a dozen of scenarios this comes up in organically. I experienced a few of these firsthand.
> shouldn't they just be a special kind of team lead who is expected to mentor full-time and not be subject to metrics?
It sounds like this was precisely the situation, and the author's company did indeed take this very action, in response to seeing the data. So, what is your complaint?
No they didn't. They dropped the metrics for everyone entirely, and Tim's job title is unchanged. The article is arguing metrics are bad and shouldn't be used; I'm arguing metrics are a valuable signal and Tim should have been given a different formal role of mentor.