[phnofive]

> However, if I know anything about high performing teams, it’s that you need to have mutual trust (which breeds psychological safety), and a shared model of what success looks like (metrics anyone?). Without these you’re going to struggle to produce results office or no office.

Hear, hear.

Note that these points are interdependent: Staff must trust management will collaborate and iterate on metrics, and management must trust employees will not game the metrics. If those things are true, then success measured against those metrics (that flows into business health and employee rewards) will reinforce mutual trust. The opposite is true, too.

[SkyPuncher]

Shared success is not metrics. In fact, most people’s understanding of “metrics” erodes any ability to have a high performing team.

In my experience, there’s an intangible aspect of “doing what the team needs” that fixed metrics simply cannot capture.

[naijaboiler]

Correct. In fact too much metric-ing gets in the way of that

[TexanFeller]

> Staff must trust management will collaborate and iterate on metrics, and management must trust employees will not game the metrics.

In my career I've never once seen either of these conditions met.