The Tyranny of Metrics

1. Metric Fixation: The Illusion of Accountability

Accountability ought to mean being held responsible for one’s actions. But by a sort of linguistic sleight of hand, accountability has come to mean demonstrating success through standardized measurement, as if only that which can be counted really counts.

The core problem. We live in an age obsessed with "measured accountability," believing that performance can only be proven through standardized metrics and publicized through "transparency." This "metric fixation" assumes that replacing personal judgment with numerical indicators, making these public, and tying rewards to them will inherently improve institutions. However, this often leads to a deceptive form of accountability, where the focus shifts from true purpose to mere numerical targets.

Widespread dysfunction. The HBO series The Wire vividly illustrates this, showing police commanders "juking the stats" by downgrading crimes or avoiding complex cases to hit arrest quotas, sacrificing effective policing for favorable numbers. Similarly, in education, teachers are forced to "teach to the test," neglecting broader curriculum and genuine learning to boost standardized test scores. These examples highlight how institutions are perverted when their survival depends on meeting metric targets, rather than fulfilling their actual mission.

A pervasive ideology. This fixation is not limited to specific sectors; it's a cultural "meme" with its own vocabulary, influencing how we think and act. The belief that "if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it" has become a cornerstone, leading to the dangerous conclusion that "anything that can be measured can be improved." This ideology persists despite mounting evidence of its unintended negative consequences, often resembling faith more than science.

2. The Trap of Measuring the Easily Measurable

There are things that can be measured. There are things that are worth measuring. But what can be measured is not always what is worth measuring; what gets measured may have no relationship to what we really want to know.

Simplifying complexity. A fundamental flaw of metric fixation is the human tendency to simplify complex problems by focusing on the most easily measurable elements. This often means that what is most important—the nuanced, qualitative aspects of performance—is overlooked in favor of what can be readily quantified, even if it's trivial or misleading. This leads to a degradation of information quality, as context and meaning are stripped away for the sake of numerical comparison.

Inputs over outcomes. Organizations frequently measure inputs (resources spent, activities undertaken) rather than actual outcomes or impact. For instance, foreign aid agencies might track the number of workshops held or people trained, rather than the long-term development or stability achieved. This focus on process over product creates an illusion of progress without necessarily delivering real results, as the true, transformational benefits are often the least measurable.

Deceptive precision. Quantification offers the allure of objectivity and certainty, making information appear solid and authoritative. However, this numerical precision can be deceptive, masking ambiguities and uncertainties. The costs of achieving this often unnecessary precision can be substantial, diverting time and effort from actual work to data collection, and leading to resentment among practitioners who understand the true value of their work.

3. Gaming the System: The Inevitable Corruption of Metrics

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

Campbell's and Goodhart's Laws. This fundamental principle, known as Campbell's Law and Goodhart's Law, states that any measure used for control becomes unreliable and will be gamed. When high stakes are attached to metrics—such as job security, promotions, or funding—individuals and institutions inevitably find ways to manipulate the numbers, often at the expense of their true purpose.

Varieties of gaming:

• Creaming: Avoiding difficult cases that might negatively impact measured performance (e.g., surgeons refusing high-risk patients, schools reclassifying weaker students).
• Lowering standards: Reducing the criteria for success to boost scores (e.g., colleges lowering graduation requirements, airlines increasing scheduled flight times to improve "on-time" metrics).
• Omission/distortion of data: Deliberately leaving out inconvenient instances or misclassifying cases (e.g., police booking felonies as misdemeanors to "reduce" crime rates).
• Cheating: Outright fabrication of evidence, such as teachers altering student answers on high-stakes tests.

Perverse incentives. These gaming strategies, while improving the metrics on paper, are ultimately dysfunctional for the organizations and the public they serve. They divert effort from genuine improvement to less productive work, creating a system where the appearance of success is prioritized over actual effectiveness.

4. The Peril of Extrinsic Rewards: Crowding Out True Motivation

The use of extrinsic rewards for activities of high intrinsic interest leads people to focus on the rewards and not on the intrinsic interest of the task, or on the larger mission of which it is a part.

Misguided motivation. Many pay-for-performance (P4P) schemes are based on an overly simplistic view of human motivation, assuming people are driven solely by material rewards. While extrinsic rewards work well for repetitive, uncreative tasks with little intrinsic interest, they often backfire in mission-oriented professions like teaching, medicine, or public service.

Crowding out intrinsic drive. When monetary incentives are introduced for tasks that professionals find intrinsically satisfying—such such as relieving pain, fostering curiosity, or serving the public—it can "crowd out" their inherent motivation. They may begin to view their work primarily as a means to monetary gain, losing interest in the larger mission and feeling insulted that their professional ethics are questioned.

Damaging effects:

• Reduced quality of care: In medicine, P4P can lead to "treating to the test," where doctors focus on measurable conditions at the expense of holistic patient care or conditions not part of the program.
• Demoralization: Teachers, for example, resent the imposition of narrow goals that conflict with their vocational ethos, leading to declining morale and experienced educators leaving the profession.
• Stunted results: Large-scale experiments, such as paying teachers for performance in New York City, have consistently shown no discernible impact on student achievement, attendance, or graduation rates.

This highlights a critical disconnect: what works for assembly-line production rarely translates effectively to complex, human-centric professions where dedication to mission and professional judgment are paramount.

5. Metrics Stifle Judgment, Innovation, and Cooperation

The calculative is the enemy of the imaginative.

Undermining expertise. Metric fixation aspires to replace judgment based on experience with standardized measurement, viewing judgment as subjective and self-interested. However, practical knowledge, acquired through years of experience, cannot be captured by formulas. This "rationalist illusion" leads to a disdain for the nuanced, context-specific expertise that truly makes organizations flourish.

Stifling creativity and risk. When individuals are judged by narrow performance metrics, they are incentivized to stick to established goals and avoid anything new or risky. Innovation, by its nature, involves experimentation and the possibility of failure, which is discouraged by systems that penalize anything less than immediate, measurable success. This can lead to stagnation, as long-term, potentially transformative projects are neglected in favor of short-term, predictable outcomes.

Eroding collaboration. Rewarding individuals based on their measured performance can undermine cooperation and a sense of common purpose. Instead of aiding and mentoring colleagues, individuals may focus solely on maximizing their own metrics, potentially ignoring or even sabotaging others. This competitive environment can degrade teamwork and the social relationships essential for institutional effectiveness, as seen in a CEO's honest admission that a manager would only transfer resources to another department "if he were crazy."

6. Transparency's Dark Side: When Openness Harms Performance

A thriving polity, like a healthy marriage, relegates some matters to the shadows.

The transparency fallacy. While often touted alongside metrics as a virtue, transparency is not always beneficial. In many contexts, effective functioning—whether in personal relationships, politics, or national security—depends on a degree of ambiguity and opacity. The assumption that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" can be counterproductive, leading to paralysis and diminished performance.

Hindering negotiation and governance. In politics, the ability to broker diverse interests and reach compromises often requires negotiations behind closed doors, shielded from public scrutiny where every concession can be labeled "betrayal." Similarly, making internal government deliberations fully public can inhibit candor and trust among officials, leading them to avoid written communication and making effective policy-making more difficult.

Jeopardizing national security. In diplomacy and intelligence, transparency can be outright fatal. The unauthorized release of classified documents, such as those by Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden, exposed confidential informants and sensitive operations, making it harder for nations to gather critical intelligence and protect their interests. This demonstrates that a certain degree of legitimate concealment is necessary for the functioning of ordinary transparency in other state institutions.

7. The Cost of Metrics: Short-Termism and Work Degradation

The more that work becomes a matter of filling in the boxes by which performance is to be measured and rewarded, the more it will repel those who think outside the box.

Focus on immediate gains. Metric fixation inherently promotes "short-termism," prioritizing immediate, measurable results over long-range considerations. This is particularly evident in business and finance, where the pressure for quarterly earnings and bonuses incentivizes executives to boost immediate profits, often at the expense of long-term investments in research, development, or employee training.

Corporate dysfunction. Examples like Mylan, which drastically hiked EpiPen prices to meet aggressive profit targets, or Wells Fargo, which set unrealistic sales quotas leading to widespread fraudulent account creation, illustrate how narrowly tailored pay-for-performance schemes can cause immense reputational and financial damage. These cases show how the pursuit of specific metrics can lead to unethical behavior and a collapse of public trust.

Degradation of work. For employees, being compelled to focus solely on what gets measured can lead to a degradation of their work experience. It stifles creativity, autonomy, and the intellectual stimulation that comes from solving complex problems. This environment often repels talented and innovative individuals, driving them from large organizations to more flexible settings, ultimately impoverishing the mainstream institutions of society.

8. Reclaiming Metrics: A Checklist for Wise Measurement

Measurement is not an alternative to judgment: measurement demands judgment: judgment about whether to measure, what to measure, how to evaluate the significance of what’s been measured, whether rewards and penalties will be attached to the results, and to whom to make the measurements available.

Judgment is paramount. The key to effective metrics lies not in their blind application, but in informed judgment. Metrics should serve to inform judgment, not replace it, recognizing their inherent distortions and limitations. This means carefully considering the purpose, utility, and potential consequences of any measurement system.

A checklist for effective use:

• What to measure? Focus on outcomes directly controlled by the organization, not external factors. The more human the activity, the less reliable the measurement.
• Usefulness? Is the metric a good proxy for what you really want to know? Ease of measurement is inversely proportional to significance.
• Costs? Account for the time and effort spent collecting, processing, and analyzing data, and the opportunity costs of diverting resources from core activities.
• Purpose? Distinguish between internal diagnostic tools for practitioners (e.g., Peter Pronovost's checklists) and external tools for reward/punishment. Low-stakes metrics are often more effective.
• Development? Metrics are more meaningful when developed from the bottom up, with input from practitioners who possess tacit, local knowledge, rather than imposed from above by those lacking direct experience.

Embrace limits. Ultimately, wisdom lies in recognizing that not all problems are soluble by metrics, and not everything that can be measured can be improved. The best use of metrics may sometimes be not to use them at all, acknowledging that unquantifiable skills and experience are indispensable for navigating the complexities of human endeavors.

Last updated: February 2, 2026