In the quest for clarity and alignment, modern organizations increasingly embrace structured goal-setting frameworks like OKRs (Objectives and Key Results). But beneath the surface of these seemingly rational systems lies a deeper question: Are we measuring what truly matters, or simply what’s easy to measure?
The Metrics Paradox
Here’s the hard truth about metrics: we’ve become obsessed with counting what we can count, not measuring what actually matters.
Look at the quarterly OKR ritual playing out across corporate America. Executives launch the process with fanfare. Teams huddle in conference rooms crafting objectives. Spreadsheets bloom with key results. Dashboards multiply. Everyone nods along.
Three months later, the metrics are green. Success! Except… customer satisfaction is plummeting. Technical debt is mounting. Teams are burning out. The organization is simultaneously hitting its targets and missing the point.
This isn’t an accident—it’s a predictable outcome of our metrics obsession. We’ve become so fixated on the numbers that we’ve forgotten why we’re measuring in the first place.
This is the fundamental tension of modern management: we need measurement to scale, but the very act of measurement distorts what we’re trying to measure. We’re optimizing the scorecard instead of winning the game.
The Human Cost of Mechanical Systems
When we attempt to quantify human activity into metrics, we often inadvertently lose something in translation. The nuance of complex work, the judgment calls, the collaborative moments that lead to breakthroughs—these elements tend to resist simple measurement. While metrics certainly have their place in organizational clarity, they’re inherently limited proxies for the richness of human contribution.
Think about your own work experience. How many of your most valuable contributions were fully captured by the metrics your organization tracked? For most knowledge workers, their most impactful moments came from insights, conversations, or unexpected problem-solving that simply couldn’t be anticipated or measured in advance.
Consider a content moderation team incentivized to increase intervention metrics. Under pressure to hit aggressive targets, they might implement overly sensitive detection systems that flag benign content. This creates unnecessary friction for users whose harmless posts are suddenly restricted or removed. When legitimate content is repeatedly flagged, users experience confusion, frustration, and a sense of being unfairly targeted. The psychological impact can be significant, especially when personal expressions or important communications are blocked without clear explanation.
Furthermore, if moderators are rushing to process more cases to hit numeric goals, they may miss critical context, leading to false positives that disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. The metrics might look impressive on paper, but the human cost—damaged trust, user alienation, and potential reputational damage—isn’t captured in those numbers.
This tension reflects what many recognize as Goodhart’s Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
The challenge stems from a mechanistic view of human work. We sometimes treat knowledge work as if it were a factory assembly line, where inputs and outputs can be precisely measured. But complex problem-solving doesn’t operate this way. The most valuable work often emerges from exploration, collaboration, and insight—elements that can be difficult to capture in predetermined metrics.
The Brand-Building Trap
Perhaps the most insidious effect of metric-driven performance systems is the way they transform how people work. It can be “so draining to run yourself as a mini PR/brand within one’s team and market oneself to your manager.”
We’ve created environments where perception management becomes as important as—or even more important than—actual contribution. Teams spend precious mental bandwidth crafting narratives around their work rather than focusing on the work itself.
The result? Shallow optimization for visible metrics rather than deep investment in meaningful outcomes. We’ve created a system that rewards those who excel at self-promotion rather than those who excel at solving problems.
A Different Path Forward
Let me be clear: the problem isn’t measurement. The problem is that we’ve forgotten that measurement is a tool, not an end in itself.
The best organizations don’t abandon metrics—they put them in their proper place. They understand that numbers exist to serve people, not the other way around.
This insight is supported by research on intrinsic motivation. A classic study by Deci, Koestner, and Ryan analyzed over 100 experiments and found that extrinsic rewards consistently undermined intrinsic motivation—particularly for interesting tasks that people would do anyway. In other words, when we focus too heavily on metrics and rewards, we can actually reduce the inner drive that produces the best work.
“It turns out that empowered people want to do a good job and want to save money.”
This reveals the fundamental truth that most management frameworks miss: people want to contribute. They want to succeed. They want to matter. When we design systems based on this reality instead of assuming people need to be controlled through metrics, we unlock extraordinary potential.
The most effective organizations understand three fundamental truths:
- Purpose outweighs metrics - People motivated by meaningful work consistently outperform those chasing arbitrary numbers
- Context enables autonomy - Teams with clear understanding make better decisions than those following rigid formulas
- Trust accelerates results - When people feel trusted rather than measured, they innovate and excel
Building an Alternative Framework
If traditional OKRs aren’t the answer, what might work better? Consider these principles:
Focus on outcomes, not outputs. Rather than counting features shipped or tasks completed, measure the actual impact on customer problems solved. Did we make people’s lives better? Did we solve real problems? These questions matter more than whether we checked all the boxes.
Embrace qualitative alongside quantitative. Not everything that matters can be counted, and not everything that can be counted matters. Create space for judgment and wisdom. The best leaders know when to trust the data and when to trust their instincts.
Keep goal-setting at the team level. Taking OKRs to an individual level fundamentally undermines their effectiveness and creates counterproductive dynamics. When objectives cascade down to individual contributors, we see several problematic patterns emerge:
First, it creates unnecessary competition between team members who should be collaborating. Engineers might guard “their” features or areas of responsibility to ensure they meet personal OKRs, even when sharing knowledge or responsibility would be better for the product and customer.
Second, individual OKRs artificially fragment work that is inherently collaborative. Complex problems rarely align neatly with organizational boundaries or individual roles. The best solutions often emerge from fluid teamwork, where responsibilities shift based on emerging needs rather than predetermined assignments.
Third, individual OKRs drive perverse incentives. People naturally optimize for what they’re measured on, even at the expense of larger goals. An engineer meeting their individual code quality targets might refuse to help with an urgent customer bug because it “doesn’t help them meet OKRs.”
Finally, the cognitive and emotional overhead of tracking, documenting, and justifying individual-level metrics drains energy away from actual creative problem-solving. The excessive self-promotion and brand management that individual OKRs encourage creates a political environment rather than a productive one.
By contrast, when OKRs remain at the team level, they can serve as a rallying point that fosters collaboration. Team members can fluidly take on different responsibilities based on what’s needed rather than what was predetermined. A team collectively working toward shared goals is naturally more adaptive and ultimately more effective than individuals separately chasing personal targets.
Separate development from evaluation. When the same frameworks are used for both growth and judgment, gaming behavior becomes inevitable. The moment metrics become tied to compensation, they cease to be tools for improvement and become targets to game.
Surviving and Thriving in an OKR-Driven Organization
Let’s be realistic: if you’re reading this, there’s a good chance you work at a company that employs OKRs. While you might not have the authority to overhaul your organization’s entire approach to goal-setting, you can find ways to navigate the system effectively and maintain your sanity—and perhaps even influence positive change.
Here are practical strategies for thriving in an OKR-driven environment:
Understand the intent behind the metrics. Every metric is a proxy for something that actually matters. When presented with an OKR, ask: “What’s the real success we’re trying to achieve here?” Understanding the underlying intent helps you make better decisions when the metrics and the mission come into conflict.
Negotiate for meaningful OKRs. If you’re involved in setting OKRs, push for ones that align with genuine customer value rather than vanity metrics. When faced with a problematic OKR, don’t simply accept it—propose alternatives that better reflect what success actually looks like. Frame your suggestions in terms of business impact: “If we measure X instead of Y, we’ll be better positioned to deliver Z value to customers.”
Document the invisible work. Much of the most valuable work in organizations—mentoring colleagues, improving collaboration, solving thorny technical problems—doesn’t fit neatly into OKR frameworks. Keep track of this work. When evaluation time comes, you’ll have concrete examples of your contributions beyond the standard metrics.
Build coalitions around outcomes. Find allies who share your commitment to actual outcomes rather than metric optimization. Create informal networks focused on customer impact. These relationships often prove more valuable than rigid reporting structures in driving meaningful change.
Perfect the art of strategic narrative. Let’s acknowledge reality: in OKR-driven organizations, storytelling matters. Rather than resisting this, learn to craft narratives that connect your work to broader business goals without sacrificing integrity. The key is to focus on genuine impact rather than metric manipulation.
Create a translation layer. Develop the skill of translating between business metrics and the day-to-day work that actually matters. Help leadership understand how seemingly mundane technical work connects to their business goals, and help your peers understand how their daily efforts contribute to the bigger picture.
Balance compliance with integrity. Sometimes, you’ll need to “play the game” to maintain credibility in the organization. The key is to comply with the letter of OKR requirements while maintaining fidelity to their spirit. Meet the minimum threshold on metrics while focusing your real energy on meaningful work.
Lead by example. If you manage others, shield them from the worst aspects of metric-driven management. Set OKRs that focus on genuine value creation rather than performance theater. Celebrate thoughtful failures alongside metric successes. The culture you create in your immediate sphere can spread.
Choose your battles wisely. Not every problematic OKR is worth fighting against. Save your political capital for the metrics that would truly drive harmful behavior if optimized for blindly. Accept that some administrative overhead is the cost of working in a large organization.
Remember what actually matters. At the end of the day, your job isn’t to hit arbitrary metrics—it’s to create value for customers and the business. When faced with a choice between helping a customer and improving a metric, choose the customer. The best leaders recognize and reward this prioritization, even if the system doesn’t explicitly encourage it.
The reality is that no organizational system is perfect. OKRs, like any framework, are tools that can be used well or poorly. By understanding their limitations and focusing on the underlying intent, you can navigate even flawed systems effectively while maintaining your focus on work that truly matters.
The Way Forward
Here’s the reality: the metrics we choose reveal what we truly value. When we prioritize short-term outputs over long-term outcomes, we get exactly what we incentivize—a culture of shortcuts, quick wins, and missed opportunities.
The organizations that will dominate the next decade won’t be those with the most sophisticated performance dashboards. They’ll be the ones that create environments where people can do their best work in service of meaningful purposes.
“You have an infinite amount of ‘could do’ and a limited amount of ‘must do’, and ‘must’ is very rarely clear a year or more out in any measurable sense.”
The ultimate question isn’t whether your team is hitting its OKRs, but whether it’s making progress on what truly matters. The answer rarely fits in a spreadsheet.
Success doesn’t come from perfecting the metrics—it comes from empowering teams who understand their mission and have the freedom to pursue it with creativity, collaboration, and commitment.
After all, the purpose of measurement should be insight, not control. When we remember that, we create organizations where both people and performance can flourish.