Ten Reasons Why You Don't Always Get What You Measure: II

Metrics-based management holds that "You get what you measure," but the assertion is actually even stronger. Many also believe that if you aren't measuring it, you won't get it. That's why it's reasonable to investigate possible causes of disappointing performance of metrics-based management. Here's part two of a collection of reasons why metrics-based management systems can disappoint. This part emphasizes employee behavior. See Part I and Part III, for more.

People aren't bolts of cloth

When we measure a length of cloth, the cloth hardly ever tries to influence the result. But employees, consciously or not, do try to make measurements "come out right." For instance, if employees fear the consequences of departing from management's expectations, they're more likely to provide data that's consistent with their estimate of management expectations.

But this effect can be even more confounding. Employees sometimes guess wrong about what management is measuring. Their biased reports then "spin" the data in a direction consistent with their interpretations of what management is measuring, rather than spinning it with respect to what management is actually measuring. Thus, even if we figure out how to correct for "spin," we might not be correcting for the right spin.

People and organizations adapt

Whether or not you believe that measurement works, it works best at first, because repeated measurements of the same attributes have decreasing impact. Soon, the measurement becomes routine, and employees adapt their actions and responses to enable a more comfortable, familiar stance.

For instance, When we measure
a length of cloth,
the cloth hardly ever
tries to influence the resultwhen we first start tracking "show-stopper defects," we find people working hard to fix them. But after a few cycles, people develop ways of reclassifying defects to appear less severe, or they create escape clauses, or the organization develops an "appeal procedure" for obtaining waivers. The effect of the metric soon diminishes, often after a surprisingly short useful life.

Measurements of different attributes can interact

When people notice that we're measuring two different attributes, they might try to make them both "come out right," and this sometimes leads them to contradictions. For instance, to achieve long-term goals, we might have to take actions that jeopardize short-term goals, or vice versa. Thus, the act of measuring one attribute can affect the measurement of another.

Moreover, it isn't necessary that we actually make two measurements. All that's required for contamination of the data is a belief among some employees that measurement of a second attribute might take place. Perhaps we measured it in the past, or perhaps other organizations measure it, or the "literature" suggests measuring it. Even if you announce that it won't be measured, there are those who will remain skeptical, and who assume that it will happen, "just to be safe."

Just as employees make choices that can reduce the effectiveness of measurements, so can management. We'll examine that issue in a future issue.  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Heavy Burdens: Should, Always, Must, and Never

As a leader you carry a heavy burden. You're accountable for everything from employee development to meeting organizational objectives, and many of these responsibilities conflict. Life is tough enough, but most of us pile on a load of over-generalized rules of work life — a load too heavy for anyone to bear.

Coping and Hard Lessons

Ever have the feeling of "Uh-oh, I've made this mistake before"? Some of these oft-repeated mistakes happen not because of obstinacy, or stupidity, or foolishness, but because the learning required to avoid them is just plain difficult. Here are some examples of hard lessons.

Wacky Words of Wisdom: III

Adages are so elegantly stated that we have difficulty doubting them. Here's Part III of a collection of often-misapplied adages.

The Utility Pole Anti-Pattern: I

Organizational processes can get so complicated that nobody actually knows how they work. If getting something done takes too long, the organization can't lead its markets, or even catch up to the leaders. Why does this happen?

Six Traps in Email or Text: II

Collaboration requires communication. For many, communicating often takes place in email and text message systems. But much of the effort expended in communication is dedicated to resolving confusions that we created for ourselves. Here are four examples.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info