Found the Taylorist.
Estimates are there to help you forecast what you can get done within a particular time period, which in turn helps you prioritize units of work.
Using them as post-hoc commitments and second-guessing your team is toxic.
Estimates are there to help you forecast what you can get done within a particular time period, which in turn helps you prioritize units of work.
Using them as post-hoc commitments and second-guessing your team is toxic.
I can see how the post reviews could be toxic, but pre estimates could also be toxic especially if estimates suddenly become hard deadlines. I think it comes down to nuance in both cases.
Post estimates could tie into performance reviews and bonus allocation as well. Where your bonus and performance would be a tight feedback loop, and determined by multiple peers vs. a single manager.
It really depends on each individual org which way works best
Now your colleagues aren't estimating the task, they're estimating the post-estimate. I'd suggest adding Goodhart's Law to your reading list as well.
Every single time I've seen estimates tied to anything performance related they've been actively gamed and lost their utility as a forecasting device.
I agree as a default scenario, you are correct.
However, we always need evidence to show if a team member is struggling and needs extra assistance, or in the worst case is not contributing positively to the team. This is not over a single blown estimate but rather a larger pattern of underperformance.
This is the failure mode, however.