/bks/images/image-o0b82.png)
'What gets measured gets managed' is one of the most quoted phrases in management and leadership, and for good reason. Measurement matters, because organisations need visibility, leaders need feedback, and teams need clarity about what matters and whether progress is being made.
Without some form of measurement, organisations tend to use a mix of assumptions, anecdotes, opinions, and guesses to assess where they are, and so drift, underperform, or waste energy and resources.
But there is also a danger in believing that measurement alone can create the needed understanding. Metrics can tell us what is happening - they can highlight movement, variation, trends, and exceptions. But numbers rarely explain themselves; they still need interpretation, context, and judgement. And we achieve that though discussion.
While what gets measured may get managed, it's what gets discussed that is far more likely to get understood, and that understanding is crucial for making a good decision about what to do next.
Measurements and metrics are not neutral. Once introduced, they begin influencing attention and behaviour almost immediately.
This isn't people playing the system with bad intent - people want to be seen to be doing a good job and so they will adapt to the systems around them that are measuring them. Those required 'metrics' signal priorities, and over time, they often become proxies for success itself.
The challenge is that every metric simplifies reality. A customer service team, for example, may improve average handling time while customer frustration gradually increases. A manufacturing operation may increase output while maintenance issues begin accumulating in the background. A sales team may hit monthly targets while damaging long-term relationships through short-term pressure. A particular metric may not be 'wrong', it may simply be incomplete.
This is one of the dangers of highly predefined measurement systems and dashboards. Once a set of metrics becomes established, organisations can unconsciously narrow their field of vision around them. Attention gravitates toward what is visible and reportable, while other important signals become easier to overlook.
Over time, people may begin managing to the measure rather than managing the underlying reality the measure was intended to represent.
Measurement produces data, which on its own has limited value. For data to become useful, it must first be turned into information - something that informs understanding, changes perception, or supports decision-making.
That process is not passive - it requires active thought. Good leaders and managers don't simply consume whatever data appears in a monthly report and attempt to 'discern meaning' from it like reading tea leaves. They ask probing questions such as:
Without that active quest for insight, 2 extremes are possible. At one extreme, organisations collect vast quantities of unfocused data and then struggle to extract meaning from it. At the other, they become tightly focused on a small number of predefined metrics that begin driving narrow behaviours and distorted priorities. And neither approach is ideal.
Part of the challenge is that organisations often treat all measurements and metrics as though they serve the same purpose. In reality, different forms of measurement exist at different levels of the system. Some provide immediate operational feedback, helping teams regulate day-to-day activity, identify variation, and make short-term adjustments. Others help leaders step back and understand broader patterns, longer-term trends, emerging risks, and strategic direction. Problems often begin when these different purposes become blurred - when high-level strategic indicators are used to micromanage operational work, or when operational measures are mistaken for evidence that the wider organisation is healthy. Good measurement systems recognise that not every number is trying to answer the same question.
Useful measurement is usually purposeful and dynamic, and the questions being asked evolve as conditions change. Operational measures may help teams make immediate adjustments and solve short-term problems. Strategic measures help organisations understand whether they are moving toward the future they are trying to create. Both of these matter, but they serve different purposes. A good operational dashboard might tell you whether the engine is running smoothly today. Strategic insight asks whether the organisation is still travelling in the right direction.
This is where conversation becomes critically important.
Metrics can answer questions such as:
But discussion explores the more difficult questions:
And so, two teams can look at the same dashboard and reach very different conclusions depending on their experience, assumptions, incentives, and understanding of the wider system. This is one reason why healthy organisations treat metrics as starting points for inquiry rather than final answers.
Discussion allows organisations to add context to the numbers. It helps surface operational reality, unintended consequences, conflicting priorities, and weak signals that may not yet appear clearly in the data. It also creates shared understanding across teams and levels of leadership:
The difference is rarely the metric itself. More often, it is the cultural environment surrounding the conversation. People learn very quickly whether measures are being used as tools for learning or tools for judgement.
The same piece of data can produce very different organisational behaviours depending on how leaders respond to it.
Over time, those reactions shape culture.
Leaders play a critical role in helping organisations interpret reality rather than simply report activity. That means creating environments where metrics support thinking, not replace it.
But not everything important fits neatly into a spreadsheet. Trust, morale, collaboration, psychological safety, leadership credibility, customer confidence, and strategic alignment are all real organisational forces - but they are difficult to measure precisely or directly; qualitative measures can be just as important as quantitative. If leaders focus only on what can be easily quantified, they risk missing some of the most important dynamics shaping long-term performance. This is especially important in complex environments where yesterday’s measures may not fully explain tomorrow’s risks.
Good organisations measure performance - they need to. But truly effective organisations also recognise that data alone does not create understanding.
Measurement helps us see patterns, movement, and variation. The ensuing discussion helps us interpret those signals, understand context, and make better decisions about what to do next.
So, measurement and metrics are not the end of thinking - they are the beginning of it.
Because while what gets measured may get managed, what gets discussed is far more likely to be understood. And going full circle, understanding depends on knowing what question you are actually trying to answer.
Ad Futurum
Graham