How common is it for manager to monitor your Git profile?
My current manager seems to track the work we are doing, by monitoring our open/draft pull requests and the statistics available on our GitHub profile. He seems to be using our activity on GitHub to track the amount of work we are doing and how we are progressing. Although, this is the first time that I have seen someone doing so, and seems too much of a micromanagement to me, is this a common practice among tech companies? I'm not sure of the Bay area or other big tech companies but I find it very odd and immature. Do engineering managers or companies really judge engineers by the GitHub profiles?
Definitely micromanagement. Not all of my work is writing code. Sometimes it’s mentoring junior devs, support calls, designing new features, meetings. Your manager must not have a tech background. See if they grow out of it, otherwise, jump ship!
Exactly my thoughts. He's so arrogant that would not listen to any of what I say. He's a principal engineer so says that he is more experienced and knows better.
Some managers like to be “data driven”. For those managers I always like to try and hack with my signals to make it ambiguous and teach those losers a lesson.
In Grab, My manager used to measure my productivity by the number of diff I have merged.
Grab is another startup just like mine. I got the same smell from Grab too and one guy came here from Grab recently.
To overcome this, some people split code into too small chunk and used to push with minor bug. Then fix those bug in another diff.
WTF? I’m a manager and I have never done this and will never do this shit. This is micromanagement to Nth degree. Productivity is not just about many commits you make. Maybe your manager is insecure, or maybe your organization is perpetuating this behavior. Either way this is not healthy and won’t do a damn thing in building trust. You need to decide if you want to be in this place. Who knows what other dumb shit he/she might pull in future.
Hire me.
It's absurd but that's part of what Amazon's annual review system is based on. How many PR/code reviews you opened, how many teammate's code reviews you commented on, how many average revisions before yours get merged, etc
Is it practiced in all of Amazon or just your particular team or division/location? Is this why people often consider Amazon a terrible place to work?
How many average revisions before your code review gets merged? Are you serious? That sounds toxic as fuck. I would straight up delete PRs and just create a brand new fresh PR every time.
If you manager does not have the skill to monitor your pull requests or watch your code commits then your product is in trouble and you need a new manager.
I'm a manager and I do look at PRs of my team to monitor code quality and design and give feedback when necessary. Never seen it being used directly as a metric for rewards or promotions because activity != impact.
Why are you worried? I mean of course the number of PRs and lines of code you write shows how productive you are!
Not saying this is good, but I would actually prefer this than a non technical manager. At least this kind of manager understands the difficulty of your work, so it’s less likely that you will get unrecognized because some other “engineer” on your team that only writes shitty design docs and never does any work
That definitely has micromanagement written all over it.
That's reassuring. I don't think I'd be able to change this habit . Maybe. Ettet change jobs!