Performance Measurement

Tom Breur

22 May 2016

“You can’t manage what you don’t measure” – we all know that, don’t we? Then how come measuring “performance” is so controversial? Aren’t managers supposed to measure? So that they can manage?

In my career, I have been fortunate to have some useful, valuable feedback sessions that were part of the corporate cycle of “performance measurement.” Unfortunately, I have dreaded most, and rightfully so. They were awful. Not only unproductive, but mostly counterproductive.

The excuse I have heard mostly was: “Sorry, we have to do this as part of the yearly planning.” It seemed to imply my manager silently agreed he loathed it, too, and probably had its doubts about usefulness, just like me.

The murky part is that “human performance” seems just a little too hard to measure, at least in an equitable way. So we “know” the measurement is unfair, and then are supposed to ignore that reality while discussing performance?!? That arbitrary notion has always enraged me.

In the past, I have been able to discuss performance in a constructive way, but never (ever) without openly acknowledging that some or most metrics in fact are “just” arbitrary (as in: not entirely valid). It seems that if you can argue why these seem misleading, they probably are. Then discuss how you (both) see things working and not so great, and you’re on your way – and on the same page!