It is dangerous to use numbers representing the volume of output of a software engineer to determine their job performance—numbers like "lines of code produced," "number of changes submitted to the repository," "numbers of bugs fixed," etc. This doc explains why and offers some alternative suggestions of how to understand and manage the performance of software engineers.
When you measure the output of a software engineer instead of their impact, you create perverse incentives for software engineers to behave in ways that ultimately damage your business.
Let’s say that you see that a software engineer has submitted very few pieces of code to the repository in this quarter. If you use this to manage their performance, you might say, "Let’s figure out how you can submit more code," Sometimes, this will result in good behaviors—perhaps they were spending too long on one large change that they will now submit as three smaller changes, making everybody happier. Nice.
However, there’s absolutely no guarantee that this will result in good behavior, because all you’re measuring is this absolute number that doesn’t actually tie back to the business impact that the developer is having. The same person, at a different time, could look at a change they have that really should be submitted all at once, and split it into 100 different changes just because it will cause their numbers to go up. That causes a ton of unnecessary work for them and their code reviewer, but it looks great on their performance review. Then they may even sit back and delay the rest of their work until next quarter because they "already got their change count up." This may sound remarkable but is actually very rational behavior for a person whose primary concern is their performance review and knows specifically that this metric is being used as an important factor in that review.
It’s assumed that we are managing the performance of software engineers because we have some goal as a business, and software engineers are here to contribute to that goal. So we are managing their performance to make sure that everybody contributes to that goal as much as possible and that the business succeeds.
The goal of the business is not "to write code." Thus, when you measure how much code somebody is writing, you don’t actually get a sense of how much they are contributing to the business. Sometimes, you do get a general idea—person X writes 100 changes a month and person Y writes 4. But honestly, that’s not even meaningful. What if those 4 changes required a ton of background research and made the company a million dollars, while those 100 changes were all sloppily done and cost the company a million dollars in lost productivity and lost users?
The same happens with measuring "how many bugs got fixed." It’s possible that somebody spent a lot of time fixing one bug that was very valuable, and somebody else spent the same time fixing 10 bugs that didn’t actually matter at all, but were easy to handle. The point here isn’t how much time got spent—it’s about how valuable the work ended up being. If you measure how much effort people are putting into things, you will get an organization whose focus is on making things more difficult so that they can show you how hard it was to solve their problems.
All of the metrics that we have around our developer tools, such as volume of code reviews, speed of code reviews, speed of builds, etc. have definite purposes that have nothing to do with individual performance reviews. Taken in aggregate across a large number of developers, these numbers show trends that allow business leaders and tool developers to make intelligent decisions about how best to serve the company. When you look at a group of 1000 developers, the differences between "I worked on one important thing for 100 hours" and "I worked on 100 unimportant things for 1 hour each" all even out and fade away, because you’re looking at such a large sample. So you can actually make intelligent statements and analysis about what’s happening, at that scale. If the volume of code reviews drops for the whole company for a significant period of time, that’s something we need to investigate.
However, if you make people behave in unusual ways because their individual performance is being measured by the same metrics, then suddenly it’s hard for business leaders to know if the numbers they are looking at are even valid. How do we know if code review volume is going up for some good reason related to our tooling improvements, or just because suddenly everybody started behaving in some weird way due to their performance being measured on these numbers? Maybe code review times went down on Team A because their performance was measured on that, so they all started rubber-stamping all code reviews and not really doing code review. But then some executive comes along and says, "Hey, Team A has much lower code review times than our other teams, can we find out what they are doing and bring that practice to other teams?" Obviously, in this situation what would really happen is that we would find out what Team A was doing and would correct it. But ideally this confusion and investigation from leadership would never have to happen in the first place, because nobody should be measuring the performance of individual software engineers based on such a metric.
There are two types of measurements that you can use, qualitative (subjective) measurements, like surveys and talking with your reports, and quantitative (objective) measurements, like numbers on graphs. This document is mostly about the quantitative side of things, because we’ve found a particular problem with that. We won’t cover the qualitative aspects here.
If you really want quantitative measurements for your team or developers, the best thing to do is to figure out the goal of the projects that they are working on, and determine a metric that measures the success of that goal. This will be different for every team, because every team works on something different.
The truth is, "programming" is a skill, not a job. We wouldn’t measure the performance of a skill to understand the success of a job. Let me give an analogy. Let’s say you are a carpenter. What’s the metric of a carpenter? You can think about that for a second, but I’ll tell you, you won’t come up with a good answer, because it’s a fundamentally bad question. I have told you that a person has a skill (carpentry) but I haven’t actually told you what their job is. If their job is that they own a furniture shop that produces custom furniture, then the success there is probably measured by "furniture delivered" and "income produced greater than expenses." But what if they are a carpenter on a construction job site? Then their success is probably measured by "projects that are complete and have passed inspection." As you can see, a skill is hard to measure, but a job is something that you can actually understand.
So to measure the success of a programmer, you have to understand what their job is. Hopefully, it’s tied to some purpose that your team has, which is part of accomplishing the larger purpose of the whole company somehow. That purpose results in some product, that product has some effect, and you can measure something about that product or that effect.
Yes, sometimes it’s hard to tie that back to an individual software engineer. That’s where your individual judgment, understanding, communication, and skills as a manager come into play. It’s up to you to understand the work that’s actually being done and how that work affected the metrics you’ve defined.
And yes, it’s also possible to design success metrics for your work that are hard to understand, difficult to take action on, or that don’t really convince anybody. There is a whole system of designing and using metrics that can help get around those problems.
These are just examples. There could be as many metrics in the world as there are projects.
User-Facing Project: Usually, your work is intended to impact some business metric. For example, maybe you’re trying to improve user engagement. You can do an experiment to prove how much your work affects that business metric, and then use that impact as the metric for your work, as long as you can see that same impact after you actually release the new feature. Bugs could be thought of as impacting some metric negatively, even if it’s just user sentiment, and thus one can figure out a metric for bug fixing that way.
Refactoring Projects: Let’s say that you have an engineer who has to refactor 100 files across 25 different codebases. You could measure how many of those refactorings are done. You could count it by file, by codebase, or by whatever makes sense. You could also get qualitative feedback from developers about how much easier the code was to use or read afterward. Some refactoring projects improve reliability or other metrics, and can be tracked that way. It just depends on what the intent is behind the project.