Don't confuse objective with easily quantified.
Did they ship the features they were responsible for? Did those features turn out well, with a low defect rate? Did they promptly address bugs? Any manager paying attention can answer these questions pretty objectively.
Re:Most HR Data Is Bad Data
by nine_zeros on Thursday March 14, 2024 @02:32PM
(#39707393)
> Don't confuse objective with easily quantified.
You say this and then go on to do the exact opposite in
> Did those features turn out well, with a low defect rate?
And likely in this
> Did they ship the features they were responsible for?
So which is it?
Re:Most HR Data Is Bad Data
by nucleardog on Friday March 15, 2024 @03:35AM
(#39712971)
> Did those features turn out well, with a low defect rate?
Is the objective measure of “well” a low defect rate? Because it sounds like you’re leaving a substantial amount of the value of an experienced employee on the table if your measure is “does it do exactly what we asked for it to do” rather than “does it solve our problems”.
You can come up with superficial ones: lines of code written, tickets closed, hours seen in office, but I doubt those are strongly associated with effectiveness. Everyone in has probably had weeks where they “did nothing” because they were working on a tricky problem or doing work outside of what was quantified.