Why Weekly Output Is a Bad Way to Judge Developers
How output-based evaluation quietly damages products, teams, and velocity
Many founders fall back on weekly output to judge developers—features shipped, tickets closed, hours logged. It feels objective and easy to track. But over time, this approach creates perverse incentives, hides real problems, and actively reduces product quality. This article explains why weekly output is a flawed metric for judging developers and what founders should focus on instead to build strong, scalable engineering teams.
Why weekly output feels like a good metric
Output is visible, countable, and easy to report.
In fast-moving startups, founders want quick signals of progress.
Why output does not equal value
More tickets closed doesn’t mean more business impact.
Developers can be productive without moving the product forward.
Measure Engineering the Right Way
If you’re relying on weekly output to judge developers, let’s redesign metrics that drive real progress and quality.
Fix Engineering MetricsHow output-based metrics create bad incentives
When output is rewarded, developers optimize for speed over quality.
This quietly increases bugs, rework, and long-term cost.
Why weekly output ignores real engineering complexity
Not all work is equal in difficulty or risk.
The most valuable work often produces the least visible output.
How output pressure erodes quality
Shortcuts become rational under output pressure.
Quality problems surface weeks or months later.
Why collaboration gets punished by output metrics
Helping others often reduces individual output.
Teams become siloed instead of supportive.
How output metrics distort planning
Teams avoid hard but necessary work.
Long-term improvements are postponed indefinitely.
Why output comparisons between developers are misleading
Different roles and contexts produce different outputs.
Comparisons create resentment instead of improvement.
How output metrics misrepresent velocity
High output weeks often lead to slower future delivery.
True velocity is consistency, not spikes.
Why founders rely on output when trust is missing
Output metrics often substitute for visibility and alignment.
Better systems reduce the need for surveillance.
What founders should measure instead of weekly output
Healthy teams focus on outcomes and reliability.
Metrics should support decision-making, not policing.
- Predictability of delivery
- Quality and stability of releases
- Alignment with product goals
- Reduction in rework and bugs
- Team collaboration and ownership
How good reporting replaces output obsession
Clear reporting reduces the need for micro-metrics.
Founders gain confidence without tracking every task.
Why output metrics fail even harder with external teams
External developers optimize for what is measured.
Poor metrics accelerate vendor-like behavior.
How founders can move away from output-based judgment
The shift requires intent and communication.
Metrics should evolve with company maturity.
- Clarify what success looks like beyond output
- Align engineering goals with business outcomes
- Introduce predictable planning and review cycles
- Reward quality and ownership
- Use metrics as signals, not scorecards
The long-term impact of better evaluation
Teams feel trusted and accountable at the same time.
Products improve steadily instead of oscillating.
Final takeaway for founders
Weekly output is easy to measure but costly to rely on.
Founders who judge developers by impact build stronger teams and better products.
Chirag Sanghvi
I help founders replace shallow productivity metrics with systems that drive real engineering impact.
Related Articles
What “Velocity” Actually Means in Product Development
Why speed alone is misleading—and how real velocity is created
Engineering Discipline in Scaling Companies
Why discipline becomes the difference between sustainable growth and slow collapse
What Good Tech Reporting Looks Like
Why clarity matters more than dashboards, charts, or daily updates