[relix]

As a manager in technology I'm starting to really detest stories like this, because they are often bandied around by IC's with a very narrow view or opinion of why it's bad to do new change X or Y "because here is a story", which on the surface may be similar to what happened here but is in fact a good idea. In reality things are always so much more nuanced, or require much more context to judge, than what people naively think.

In this particular case, I can think of a few reasons why the original scenario that this team was in would still be considered "bad". For example, maybe Tim received tasks to do and he didn't do them, now the company is behind on things. Maybe the other people are not as good as their job as they should be, but because of Tim's interference that's being hidden. Maybe the expectation is that the other people are as good as Tim, so why are they not helping each other out as much as Tim is? Should Tim get a promotion, or are the other people performing badly compared to their position and salary? Maybe the tasks that Tim was supposed to do are more important than the ones he's helping others with. Maybe the company didn't budget this much investment (2 people) for a specific thing that needs doing, and as there's just so much engineering time going around, what other tasks are now receiving less time than budgetted?

There's so many ways where this story may fall apart in a real context. Obviously, something has to change (expectations, budgetting, salaries, job levels, etc...) to align reality with the direction that the company wants to go into, and that change is not necessarily (limited to) "keep Tim around and have him help everyone out and everyone will be OK and this is the optimal scenario and management bad".

The implication also being that "evaluating people on story points is bad", but that completely disregards the fact that doing this has surfaced an issue in the department that needs resolving (and before I get pitchforks thrown at me - that issue may very well be that Tim needs a change of job title and a promotion) - but obviously expectations and reality didn't align beforehand, and the story point metric surfaced it and allows for resolving it. In that sense, the story point thing yielded benefits that otherwise wouldn't have been had.

[Gerardo1]

This seems a lot like trying to invent a problem to justify your metrics rather than acknowledging that your metrics don't align with the actual performance of the team.

There's no indication in the article that the team was struggling or under-performing, and there's no reason to promote someone out of a position they're thriving in just because the way they deliver value doesn't neatly align with how you're measuring value, especially if you can plainly see the value.

Here's what I've seen in the past: exactly the scenario you described, the "Tim" is promoted to team lead or architect or something similar, and now their calendar is booked up and they no longer have time to do the thing that brings value (and that they enjoy). No one on the team is happy, everyone is stressed, and in a year or so you'll start bleeding members. Tim either hangs around and is a mediocre whatever position he is, or he leaves to be a whatever position somewhere else where he can start with a new context and without loaded expectations.

[relix]

I agree that firing people based on delivered story points is probably wrong. I disagree that measuring the amount of story points someone delivers has no benefits. In this case, it surfaced a very interesting dynamic in a team that apparently the company wasn't aware of, and now that it is surfaced, it can align that team better to the goals of the company. I would really wonder, for instance, how Tim was evaluated on performance, if the expectations of him didn't align with the role he was doing.

I think the part in the article where a manager wanted to fire Tim because he delivered 0 story points, and the teamlead (?) refused, is made up for dramatic effect. I can't imagine any manager seeing those type of results and instead of asking the teamlead what's going on there, jumping to the conclusion that Tim should be fired.

[jrowen]

At the end of the day, it's all emotional and biased human beings subjectively evaluating/judging other human beings. This guy that worked with Tim believed that he added great value to the team. A manager came to a different conclusion. It's impossible for them to determine who is "correct," let alone us. Of course we can come up with all sorts of potential scenarios but it seems pointless and unfounded without first-hand knowledge of the situation. The skill of being a manager is deeply understanding the specific and individual nature of their team rather than trying to apply a more generalized "playbook."

Edit: By that I mean that I am highly skeptical of metrics used to evaluate people. It's a lazy way to make the job easy and avoid doing the hard work of getting in the trenches, gaining unquantifiable insight into what's going on, and effectively communicating that up the chain.

[relix]

Of course. My point is that this exact same situation, at a different company, may have surfaced a Tim that actually should be PIPed because he wasn't doing what he was asked to do, or his contributions weren't as valuable from an objective point of view (but of course all his peers love him taking some load off and them being able to get all the credit), or he was forcing a team dynamic that should be "fixed" because Tim is actually a Brent (from Phoenix Project) that had to have his hand in everything and the team couldn't survive without him, yet it may be difficult to discern these situations from the situation described in the article where Tim (sounds like) he was definitely bringing more value to the team than a replacement would.

Yeah it's a few hypotheticals onwards, and there's probably better ways to surface those problems, but companies are messy and no one is without flaw or 100% competent, no engineer and no manager.

(Note that I'm not saying evaluating a person based on delivering story points is optimal, or even useful)