Intro
Most attempts to measure developer productivity degenerate into surveillance because they track "activity" (clicks and time online) rather than actual work outcomes. To get valid performance data without destroying trust, you must track outcomes for coaching, not activity for surveillance.
This guide covers how to monitor work artifacts (PRs, tickets), restrict individual data to private 1:1s, and use metrics to support fair performance reviews.
- Track Artifacts, Not Exhaust
- Apply the "StarCraft" Test
- Build a Privacy Firewall
- Use Individual Data for Context, Not Ranking
- Pair Metrics with Continuous Feedback
- Roll Out with Transparency
1. Track Artifacts, Not Exhaust
If you do not define "productivity," you will end up measuring noise: Slack volume, meeting hours, and active window time. None of these tell you if value is being delivered.
Instead, measure the artifacts of work - the tangible outputs that cross a boundary.
- Code: PRs merged, review cycle time, code churn.
- Planning: Tickets completed, scope delivered, specifications written.
- Reliability: Incidents resolved, on-call acknowledgments.
These are not "spyware" signals; they are the breadcrumbs of engineering work. When you focus on artifacts, you measure the work itself, not the employee's mouse usage.
2. Apply the "StarCraft" Test
Activity metrics feel objective, but they are the fastest route to surveillance theater because they encourage gaming the system.
If a metric can be improved by installing a game to generate clicks, it is measuring fear, not impact.
Employees openly discuss "workarounds" for activity trackers, such as "Just keep clicking" or using mouse jigglers. You built a click counter, so they are playing the click game.
The Rule: Explicitly ban interaction proxies (keystrokes, webcam snaps, "productive hours"). Track outcomes for coaching, not activity for surveillance.
3. Build a Privacy Firewall
The difference between "performance management" and "spying" is often just access control.
Establish strict visibility rules:
- Team Level: Public to the team. Use this to find bottlenecks (e.g., "Review wait time is up 20%").
- Individual Level: Private to the Manager and the Individual. Use this for 1:1 coaching and performance reviews.
Never publish individual leaderboards. Public ranking creates a "Hunger Games" culture where developers sabotage peers to improve their own stats. Keep individual insights behind a permission gate.
4. Use Individual Data for Context, Not Ranking
It is valid - and necessary - to understand individual performance. You need to identify who is struggling (underperforming) and who is carrying the load (overperforming).
But you should treat this data as context, not a scorecard.
How to use individual signals correctly:
- The Check-in: "I noticed your review cycle time is 2x higher than the team average. Are you blocked, or overloaded?"
- The Promotion: "You have consistently handled 30% more complex tickets than peers this quarter; this supports your case for Senior."
Use the data to start the conversation, not to end it.
5. Pair Metrics with Continuous Feedback
Data tells you what happened; it doesn't tell you why. A drop in PRs could mean laziness, or it could mean the engineer spent the week mentoring juniors and fighting fires.
The Full Picture: Combine artifact metrics with qualitative signals.
- Peer Feedback: Are they helpful in Slack?
- Manager notes: Did they drive the architecture decision?
Metrics without feedback are blind; feedback without metrics is biased. You need both to build a holistic developer profile.
6. Roll Out with Transparency
Engineers do not panic because you measure work; they panic because they think you will use the data to unfairly fire them.
The Rollout Script:
- Define the source: "We are looking at Jira and GitHub data, not your screen."
- Define the use: "We use this to spot burnout and support performance reviews."
- Define the limit: "Individual data is for you and your manager only. No public rankings."
When you explain that the goal is fairness - removing bias from reviews - you turn a surveillance conversation into a support conversation.
Closing Thoughts
You cannot manage a team effectively based on "vibes" alone. You need data to advocate for your high performers and to support those who are struggling.
The goal is not to spy on the human, but to understand the work.
Track outcomes for coaching, not activity for surveillance.
Do This Next: The Coaching Checklist
Audit your metrics strategy against these four items to ensure you are driving performance, not fear.
- The StarCraft Test: Can I game this by clicking more? (If yes, delete it.)
- The Policy Check: Have I published who can see this data, and what it can’t be used for?
- The Visibility Rule: Are individual trends restricted to private coaching contexts (OK), while public views stay team-level (required)?
- The Kill Switch: Is there a specific person named who can pause collection if trust starts bleeding?