Even when measurement precedes desired results, we sometimes wonder whether the measuring caused the outcome. We've already looked at our assumptions regarding measurement itself, and at the effects of employee behavior. But management actions also raise questions about measurement-based management. Here are four examples. See Part I, and Part II for more.
- We tend to measure "them" rather than "us"
- Measurements are relatively less likely to probe attributes of management processes than they are to probe attributes of other processes. For instance, the starting point for time-to-market measurements usually comes after the "fuzzy front end" — the part that includes concept formulation, final approval, and resource allocation — all management processes.
- If we believe in the efficacy of measurement, we ought to apply it to management processes, too.
- We tend not to measure the effectiveness of metrics-based management
- The effectiveness of measurement depends on processes for selecting and designing metrics, collecting metrics data, analyzing it, and using the results to adjust processes. These activities are rarely measured themselves.
- If metrics-based management works, it should work for the metrics approach itself. The rarity of attempts to measure the effectiveness of metrics-based management raises questions both about our commitment to the approach, and its validity.
- Measurement fatigue
- When people adapt to measurement, they find ways to limit the controlling effects of the measurement. The organization then returns to Square Two, which is just like Square One, except for the added burden of reporting (and evading the effects of) the metric. Typically, organizations respond by introducing another metric to "control" the evasion problem.
- In this way, an organization acquires a steadily increasing burden of (mostly) ineffective metrology, which eases only with a reorg, or the arrival of a new high-level manager, or an acquisition, or clean-sheet re-engineering, or major downsizing or bankruptcy.
- You can't always get what you want
- Measurement doesn't help
much if employees are
unable to produce
the desired results
due to forces outside
- Even when we measure what we want to get, we might not be providing the resources needed to achieve it. Employees might simply be unable to produce the desired results, because of forces outside their control, physical laws, government laws and regulations, inadequate resources, deficits in skills or knowledge, toxic culture, wrong knowledge, ineffective management, or other factors.
- For instance, producing tight-tolerance parts with worn-out, outdated equipment is unlikely to work, no matter what you measure. Altered employee behavior just isn't the answer, and no amount of measuring the output will "encourage" them to do well enough.
And so it appears that there are ample reasons to explain the disappointing results of measurement-based management. Perhaps more puzzling is why the practice persists, and why it's so widely used. Other intriguing questions: When is measurement useful? When does measurement have the effect we hope for? I'll leave these questions for another time. 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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- Team Thrills
- Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience
is rare. How can we make it happen more often?
- Assumptions and the Johari Window: I
- The roots of both creative and destructive conflict can often be traced to differing assumptions of
the parties to the conflict. Working out these differences is a lot easier when we know what everyone's
- Remote Facilitation in Synchronous Contexts: III
- Facilitators of synchronous distributed meetings (meetings that occur in real time, via telephone or
video) can make life much easier for everyone by taking steps before the meeting starts. Here's Part
III of a little catalog of suggestions for remote facilitators.
- Brain Clutter
- The capacity of the human mind is astonishing. Our ability to accomplish great things while simultaneously
fretting about mountains of trivia is perhaps among the best evidence of that capacity. Just imagine
what we could accomplish if we could control the fretting…
- Collaborations or Cooperations?
- Modern products and services are so complex that many people cooperate and collaborate to produce them.
Strangely, few of us have given much thought to the difference between cooperating and collaborating.
The two do differ, and the differences matter.
See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Critical Thinking at Work for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming March 29: Time Slot Recycling: The Risks
- When we can't begin a meeting because some people haven't arrived, we sometimes cancel the meeting and hold a different one, with the people who are in attendance. It might seem like a good way to avoid wasting time, but there are risks. Available here and by RSS on March 29.
- And on April 5: The Fallacy of Division
- Errors of reasoning are pervasive in everyday thought in most organizations. One of the more common errors is called the Fallacy of Division, in which we assume that attributes of a class apply to all members of that class. It leads to ridiculous results. Available here and by RSS on April 5.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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