[kmatthews812]

"As a manager, I feel that using metrics from productivity tools to measure productivity is lazy and counter productive."

I agree, if that is the only way you measure productivity. These tools create a more holistic view of what a person does at work and should not be the sole measure of performance.

In reality, what they make visible are the people who do little to nothing for 3+ days. Graphs that shows no work for long stretches make performance conversations much easier. It's tough for a poor worker to argue their way out of that or fake the metrics going forward.

[Silhouette]

In reality, what they make visible are the people who do little to nothing for 3+ days.

I've worked in places where many metrics of this type would indicate I did little to nothing for 3+ weeks. Some of the most important projects I've ever worked on in terms of business impact have been in that category.

The difference in outcomes IME is almost always whether you're working with good management and good communication so everyone understands what's really going on and it's no problem or you're working with bad management and poor communications and something of great value is incorrectly assessed as having little value leading to worse outcomes for everyone.

[wizzwizz4]

> In reality, what they make visible are the people who do little to nothing for 3+ days.

I am that worker. I've been praised for "carrying the team" on more than one occasion. If I'm doing my job to a high standard, why is this any of your business?

[qwytw]

So an 'employee' who attending 4 meetings every day and edited 20 documents but didn't actually accomplish anything useful is better than the one who did nothing for 3 days but managed to produce a lot of actual value for the company in the other two?

> In reality

IMHO the tool would be most useful in dysfunctional companies where managers don't really know what their subordinates are supposed to be doing or are trying achieve besides "working".