Productivity was ultimately measured by talking to the people and asking what they've been working on, what the challenges were, and why it was taking so long. When we'd talk to some of these people, they could barely come up with a story for what they had been doing all week.

The metrics were used as an indicator of where to investigate, not as an ultimate measure of productivity. The key metrics were actually entirely in control of the teams themselves: We would estimate our own story points and could even close our own tickets as completed if we wanted.

When some employees go from doing 20-25 story points per week down to 3-5 and the only change was that they started working remotely, something is wrong.

Remember, these were people rating their own story points!

IMO, they could have gamed the system if they wanted to by inflating story points and churning tickets (though this would only delay their managers catching on, not avoid it). These people weren't even doing that. They just... stopped working more than a couple hours per week and assumed nobody would notice.

I know this cuts against the Reddit, Twitter, and Hacker News narrative that everyone is more productive remote, but I watched it happen in real time. It wasn't just a few people, it was a significant number of people who couldn't handle it.

Not everyone can handle remote and the number of people in this category is a lot higher than the internet suggests. I don't know why that's controversial for some people.