“What gets measured gets done” may be one of the most influential management ideas of the modern era. It may also be one of the most counterproductive when misunderstood. Organizations today have become extraordinarily sophisticated at measuring performance while simultaneously losing visibility into whether performance is actually improving.
There is a difference between a measurable objective and an outcome. A measurable objective is often a proxy for progress. An outcome is a change in reality. They sound similar, but psychologically they behave very differently.
A team can hit every measurable objective it set for the quarter and still weaken customer trust, slow innovation, exhaust employees and drift further away from the outcome it was originally trying to create.
When I was the head of strategy for Oracle’s Head of Cloud, I saw this firsthand in the software industry. As enterprise companies began shifting from on-premise software to cloud subscriptions, the first question was whether customers would even buy SaaS in the first place. So we measured subscription sales relentlessly: bookings, ARR, renewals. Those numbers improved. That became the proxy for success.
But over time, we realized many customers were purchasing licenses they barely used. So the industry evolved its metrics again. The focus shifted to adoption: logins, usage rates, activated seats, etc. Those numbers improved too.
But even then many organizations still discovered they were not materially better off because of it. The metrics suggested success while the underlying outcome of creating meaningful customer value remained elusive. Somewhere along the way, organizations became so focused on optimizing the proxy that they forgot what reality the proxy was supposed to represent.
The metric stopped measuring reality and started replacing it.
Chief Innovation Officer Claire Ward educated me on this dynamic recently and it has completely changed the way I think about measurable objectives.
Claire used the example of healthcare systems introducing patient wait-time targets because the desired outcome was better healthcare. Over time, the focus shifted toward beating the target itself instead of improving patient care.
Organizations do versions of this constantly.
A company wants a safer workplace, so leadership introduces an objective around reducing safety incidents. Then people become less likely to report problems because the measurable objective itself has become the pressure point.
Claire argued that organizations have to psychologically decouple the metric from the mission.
Outcome-oriented cultures stay focused on adapting to reality and solving the actual problem. Metric-oriented cultures become consumed with managing numbers and protecting appearances.
This dynamic also works in reverse.
Organizations can miss a measurable objective while still making meaningful progress in reality. I think about a year in which we delivered record growth as a company but still missed the targets set by our private equity owners. The internal narrative became failure despite the reality that the business was significantly healthier, stronger, and more valuable than the year before.
When leaders become too attached to the measurable objective itself, they can mistake the appearance of progress for progress itself.
This dynamic also helps explain what economist Robert Solow famously called the productivity paradox: “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”
Technology was visibly transforming how people worked long before those changes clearly appeared in the measurable productivity data.
The same thing happens inside organizations.
Some forms of progress emerge in reality before they fully register in the metrics. Innovation often looks inefficient before it looks successful. Cultural transformation can temporarily suppress short-term output before it strengthens long-term performance. Strategic repositioning can make the numbers look worse before the business actually becomes healthier.
When leaders become overly attached to measurable objectives, they can prematurely abandon meaningful transformation simply because the proxy has not yet caught up to reality.
That mindset creates reactive cultures because employees become more cautious when protecting the metric feels paramount. Managers spend more time defending numbers than improving systems. Innovation slows down because people become afraid of temporarily disrupting clean reporting structures.
Claire also talked about the importance of psychological safety and creating enough trust inside organizations for people to stay focused on long-term outcomes instead of constantly reacting to short-term objectives.
Your advantage as a leader will come from being able to tell the difference between a number that looks good and a reality that is getting better.
I’ll be speaking more about leadership, workplace culture, and innovation at the SPS Connected Workplace Experience this June in New York alongside leaders including Claire Ward.
Event Page and Registration: SPS Connected Workplace Experience
#SPSNYC26 #SPSConnectedWorkplace #WorkplaceExperience
Elsewhere in Culture
Quarterly Earnings and Short-Term Thinking with John Frehse On this week’s CEO Daily Brief, John and I debated quarterly earnings reporting and whether the pressure to constantly hit short-term targets is making companies worse at long-term strategy. John focused on transparency and accountability to shareholders. I kept thinking about what happens culturally inside organizations when every decision gets filtered through quarterly performance pressure. The conversation turned into a bigger discussion about trust, leadership, workforce impact, and whether companies are actually allowed to invest in the future anymore. Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ceo-daily-brief-with-dr-jessica-kriegel/id1725350421?i=1000768370595 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7EkgvI48TjcnwgGjXrEf3D?si=c7fcb9b6ed904726
The Beliefs We Don’t Realize We Have I shared a story from a trip to Washington, D.C. with my daughter that completely caught me off guard. After visiting the African American History Museum, she told me she thought Thomas Jefferson was Black because of Hamilton. It was such a powerful reminder that beliefs are often invisible until something exposes them. The experiences people have shape the stories they believe, whether they realize it or not. That is true in parenting, leadership, and workplace culture. Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ceo-daily-brief-with-dr-jessica-kriegel/id1725350421?i=1000768537393 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0JneeSrwZyTqPw1Z4FjvvR?si=b96c2de14d304c40
Replacing Blame Culture with Accountability with Brian Fielkow Brian and I talked about why punishment rarely creates better organizations and why so many companies confuse blame with accountability. We discussed the difference between blame cultures and what Brian calls a “just culture,” where leaders focus on understanding the systems, training, environment, and beliefs that led to an action instead of immediately punishing the outcome. The conversation connected deeply to our work around accountability because sustainable performance improvement requires understanding why people behave the way they do in the first place. Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ceo-daily-brief-with-dr-jessica-kriegel/id1725350421?i=1000768716340 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0S4IpNlbxUWACQTynCrxMt?si=5ebcb4d3c7124b90
And later this week…
Longevity, Ambition, and Enjoying the Life You Have What’s up with longevity culture and the obsession so many high achievers have with optimizing for more time, more productivity, and more achievement. What struck me is how many people spend their lives trying to create more future time while barely enjoying the time they already have. It turned into a much more personal reflection on ambition, fear, surrender, and the realization that constantly chasing the next thing can prevent you from appreciating the thing you already worked so hard to build.