We have several criteria that we look at, including impact on the team and outside the team, expertise, etc, which includes feedback from peers. But after a few years (been here over 6), with the output of that process and correlating to the statistics I came to the conclusion it was significant enough to casually look at. I never found an outlier in the direction of very little PRs but also very good impact on the team/company. For the performance criteria that affects promotions etc we don't actually look at it, this is something I do because I like to see my own statistics and after a while you remember who is usually where in the sorted list.
Thanks for sharing. I was legitimately curious. This is very interesting. I still have a healthy dose of skepticism, but it’s not like you’re stack ranking based on PR frequency or size, and the fact it’s not an input to your function might be why it has the signal you see. Kind of a catch-22 for lazy managers.
Yeah, we've tried to be reeeeeaaally careful in not letting this become important for evaluating performance due to all the pitfalls it has and how it can be gamed. End of the day nothing beats actually reviewing the PRs themselves and trusting the feedback from peers in my opinion.
