RE: Performance Reviews
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.scrum.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <BL2PR03MB3545B1498B33B8FEFF3514585C00@BL2PR03MB354.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> |
I think I wasn’t clear in what I was saying… By “team-based”, I meant that teams are rated instead of individuals. If you have multiple teams, that means that you are going to be rating teams against each other. I think this situation is probably worse from a gaming perspective; in a single agile team the individuals depend on each other so there is social pressure against me trying to unfairly look better than my teammates. I’m not sure what team measurements would be used, but I my guess is that they will set up the wrong incentives. If, for example, you counted story points, you’d see story point inflation. If you counted features, you will see some teams feel they got treated unfairly because they ended up with the harder and less-flashier features. I also expect that I will see teams to de-emphasize activities that are “low-value-add” to the metrics – things like helping other teams improve, keeping technical debt low, that sort of thing. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] Performance Reviews Wouldn’t team-based gaming reduce the gamer’s rating? On May 21, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Eric Gunnerson [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I like the idea of team-based over individual based, but I’m wondering if you might see gaming and reduced cooperation at the team level instead of at the individual level. Ron Jeffries ronjeffries.com<http://ronjeffries.com> Before you contradict an old man, my fair friend, you should endeavor to understand him. - George Santayana