In addition to your points, with which I agree, it also depends a lot on team culture. If you do your best to hire responsible adults and then treat your employees like adults most of them act like adults. When there is a healthy team culture of shared responsibility people who aren't pulling their weight tend to stick out.

The best way to avoid people gaming the system is to hire honest, hard working people who don't want to game the system. Then get out of the way and let them work.

You're right, of course, but hiring for culture fit is easier when you're a small company and you only have to hire for a few distinct roles. When you're a large company and you have a hiring quota of hundreds of engineers a year to deal with expected development requirements, well, that's where you start to need to "corporatize" and come up with good metrics.

I've never run a large company, or been high enough in management to try this, but I still think there is a better way:

In code we work in layers of abstraction. Large projects can be healthy when every layer is small enough to fit in your head.

In the same way, I think we could build a large company in layers of teams. Each layer should be manageable in the way discussed above.

Good modularity in code allows us to keep the whole problem in our head. Good team structure (requires good management) allows us to keep the management decisions at the tribe/human level that we are good at and not need the kind of mass, impersonal systems that lead to burdensome bureaucracy.

Of course, this kind of leadership and culture has to come from the top. It also requires that leadership explicitly avoid micromanagement, breaking the team boundaries. And requires continued commitment to treating your employees at every level like adults.

Of course, people are not code, but I think this organisational system of managing complexity can be applied to both.

It would be interesting to do some case studies, but I believe there are several large companies that have done this successfully, until top leadership changes (founder dies, etc.) and the new leader doesn't have the same trust of and commitment to employee/team autonomy. The dynamic changes, people notice and either leave or start gaming the system, etc.

There's some blatantly missing metrics here.

First off, there's no allowance made for mentoring and answering technical questions. If you go head-down and socially punish anyone who disturbs you - even for good reason - you'll get more done and get a raise. On the other hand, if you annoyingly ask questions that further your project at the expense of distracting people around you, that also shows up in your project metrics and not your coworkers'. This will likely end up resulting in a really dysfunctional, non-collaborative culture.

Second, technical debt. There's two casual factors here. First is that hacking together stuff helps your projects in the short run, while hurting the organization as a whole in the long run. Basically, another example of externalizing the costs of shipping your features. Also problematic is that working with lots of technical debt in the code base will stretch out your estimates, since there's tons of tech debt and making slow progress is the new normal. You'll "hit your feature development targets", but those targets will be a fraction of what they'd be with a better culture.

Third, and related to the above, is deadline inflation. Your organization ends up rewarding people who are better at convincing management to give them more time to ship things. Yeah.

1) Not so sure this is true. You may get more done individually in the short-term, but over the long-term, your anti-social behavior will cause the rest of your team to shut you out in turn, and your lack of visibility and understanding into what your team is working on will affect your future productivity and earnings. This is a Nash equilibrium at work, and good management will explain how the Nash equilibrium of co-operating on teamwork serves everyone's best individual long-term interests, even if the metrics naively seem to favor short-term action.

2) You don't need to adjust feature development metrics to get technical debt paid down. You set a target (e.g. 20% time to paying down debt), build a backlog of technical debt you know about, and either add the tasks to your sprint/version target (rewarding the team for completing them, like any other task) or come up with some other manner of getting them done, like Boy Scout code reviews (i.e. leave the codebase cleaner than you found it or fail review).

3) If you think you can ship better code by forcing arbitrary deadlines, then I hate to break it to you, but if the beatings continue, morale will not improve. And if you think you can substitute metrics and cash bonuses for good management skills to get people to work long hours so that you'll ship by the start of the holiday season (or other real deadline), then you don't understand how metrics is a tool for management and not a replacement for management.

I think I phrased my third point poorly, since I seem to have conveyed exactly the opposite effect that I intended. What I'm saying is that if you tie pay to performance against arbitrary deadlines, you're effectively paying engineers to pad their estimates. Estimation is definitely a pretty major game as it is, and we do ourselves no favors by paying people to play it more aggressively.