The Measurement Puzzle

Like many of my fellow compensation professionals, I am a fan of measurement - mostly.  Without measurement, it is difficult to achieve the objectives most organizations set out for spending their pay dollars well.

And yet measurement can present us with a double-edged sword.  Carelessly yielded, it can cut us... badly.  Many of us in the business of measuring and rewarding performance - be it individual, team or organizational - have learned the hard way that measurement has its limits.  That we must recognize and respect its boundaries.

An overemphasis on measurement can backfire.  In our zeal to throw the measurement net as widely as possible, we are tempted to focus on the more easily measurable things rather than the right things.  We risk undermining the very things we mean to encourage - particularly when we begin tying rewards to those measurements.

And yet, limits and risks aside, I think measurement will play an increasingly central and critical role in managing today's - and tomorrow's - workforce.  The reasons I think this include the following:

Business success and creating any kind of competitive advantage increasingly demands the effective deployment of people.  It's tough to make this happen without solid metrics, especially in a world where...

Today's workforce is more diverse and remote than ever before.  Work teams are spread across generations, locations, even time zones and oceans.  They include part-timers, contract employees and telecommuters.  They increasingly depend on technology - rather than face to face interaction - to communicate and coordinate their efforts.  The days of work teams that can be managed via direct physical contact and oversight may be disappearing.

Today's workers, therefore, must increasingly be managed by results.  Which takes measurement.  Without measurement, without clear performance standards and defined objectives, performance management becomes too tied to a manager's direct observation, judgment and discretion.  In this scenario, workers are dependent on their manager's personal cues and feedback to know whether they are doing well or poorly, whether they should stay the course or rethink their approach to their responsibilities.  This is not only impractical, it sucks any sense of empowerment, autonomy and self-mastery out of the workplace.

To measure or not?  Some of us will always be conflicted about measurement in the workplace - and frankly, I think that's a good thing.  A healthy dose of skepticism will work well for us, forcing us to balance and reconcile the positive effects and capabilities of measurement with its darker side ... in all our efforts.

Ann Bares is the Editor of Compensation Café,  Author of Compensation Force and Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting services to a wide range of client organizations.  She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School, enjoys cooking and reading in her spare time.  Follow her on Twitter at @annbares.

Image courtesy of healnh.org

Comments

[E James (Jim) Brennan]

Lest anyone improperly misconstrue your reference to "measurement," Ann, let me add that measurements do not have to be numbers. The word, "number," does not even appear in your article. Expectations of quality, quantity, time, cost, and any other performance output result category can be discussed, clearly defined, communicated and measured by many means.

The literal meaning of "thinking outside the box" recognizes that we all too often restrict ourselves by creating imaginary walls, constraints and limits that do not really exist. Frequently, there are no boundaries to choices except those we impose upon ourselves (often unconsciously): see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_outside_the_box for the visual illustration of the ancient phrase.

[Charles H. Green]

Ann,

I am always glad to see someone add a note of sobriety to counteract the frequently mindless worship of measurement, as in, " if you can't measure it, you can't manage it.”

You suggest that we are tempted to measuring the wrong things by the ease of measurement. this is exactly right–the old case of the drunk looking for his car keys under the streetlamp because the light is better there than where he lost them. It's not just a joke; someone reminded me just yesterday of a wonderful paper by Richard Feynman called “Cargo Colt Science,” where he cites very real and very scary examples in the heart of science and public policy. (If anyone is interested, find it here http://ow.ly/3ZZcj).

I like how Jim Brennan has raised the issue to an even higher level, though I suspect it may be lost on most of those at the “metrics = management” level. His Wikipedia link about thinking outside the box offers another insight; the power of metaphor as a way of stretching insight without being limited by “the box.”

All good stuff. Thanks to both of you for raising the thought level this chilly afternoon.

[Ann Bares]

Jim:

Yes - thanks for reinforcing a point that was in my head as I wrote this, but didn't make it into the post. Measurement CAN be qualitative as well as quantitative. Not all important expecations or accomplishments lend themselves to numbers - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find common language and definitions that help us determine whether we are doing the right things in the right way.

Thanks for the link to the great "outside the box" visual and for, as Charlie says below, raising an important issue to an even higher level. (Perhaps there's a Brennan follow-up post here somewhere!)

Charlie:

So glad to hear that this post resonated for you - thanks for sharing your thoughts... and the Feynman link. As you and Jim so wisely observe here, we are ultimately talking about communication and shared insight, the kind that can help all of us better understand and improve on the work we do.