- The following are not the same:
- What you want to measure
- What you need to measure
- What you have been told that you have to measure
- What people expected to measure in similar circumstances
- What you think you should measure
- You can measure anything. You just need to define the word measure. The managerial default is a score, or a number in a spreadsheet, which leaves out very legitimate qualitative measurements and preferential ones. For example, in ‘I always prefer the beach over the mountains, and always prefer diving over the beach’, Utility Theory says that you always prefer diving over the beach. This rationality has been challenged, but it is an example of how I have not used any number and have however expressed my measurement in preferential terms)
- Not because it can be measured it means it’s relevant
- Not because there is a tool ready, it means it measures what you need to measure (Employee Engagement industry, please re-think)
- The measurement is not the reality but, a measurement of the reality (don’t ‘manage the score’).
- Tracking progress must be multi-measure, hard and soft
- ‘Activity’ is an easy data point, mostly useless (e.g number of workshops)
- The only thing worth measuring is what you care about. Start with that question.
- Measuring is close to a dogma, dogmas require serious critical thinking
- ‘What can’t be measured can’t be managed’ contains high levels of un-critical thinking. Some things may not be measurable, or it may be difficult to do so. The statement that we repeat like parrots in managerial land, may lead to diverting the attention to things that are easy (easier) to measure, regardless their relevance.
Would you like to comment?