In many organizations today, performance is still measured by quantity: hours logged, emails sent, meetings attended. These indicators—often called KPIs—offer a comforting illusion of control. But without context or purpose, they’re meaningless. Worse, they’re dangerous.
When we measure without purpose, people adapt. They learn to look productive instead of being effective. They work late so they’re seen. They send emails at 10 p.m. to appear committed. They fill out timesheets that satisfy the system, not the truth. And this behavior isn’t a bug—it’s a feature of a system that has confused visibility with value.
So what should we measure instead?
The Real Reason We Work: To Create Value
A company doesn’t exist to produce hours—it exists to produce value. That value might be financial, social, intellectual, or emotional—but value nonetheless. And this value should be the core around which performance is defined.
As Issor Zineb notes:
"Performance is a complex, multi-dimensional concept... relative to the company’s vision, strategy, and objectives. [...] It is not limited solely to its financial dimension."
Indeed, the over-reliance on a single indicator, like GDP for countries or profit for companies, has led to distorted behaviors. What we choose to measure shapes what we choose to value. And if we value appearances, we’ll get theatrics. If we value outcomes, we need to define and align on what those outcomes are.
The Challenge of Measuring Individual Performance
For centuries, performance was easy to measure: a worker made 10 garments a day; a craftsman delivered 5 tables. But most of today’s jobs are in the service economy. Outputs are intangible, collaborative, and influenced by hundreds of variables. What does it mean to "perform" when the work involves facilitation, coordination, strategy, or care?
Christophe Dejours highlights the dilemma:
“Since we don’t know how to measure work, we must judge it.”
But to judge work, we must first define it. And in a constantly evolving system, who can claim to know what good looks like—except, ironically, the consulting firm leading the change?
Beyond Productivity: The Multidimensional Nature of Performance
In the 1990s, Campbell outlined eight dimensions of performance—ranging from task-specific skills to team facilitation. In 2003, Motowidlo pushed further:
“Work performance is the total value expected by the organization from the episodes of discrete behaviors performed by an individual over a given period.”
This definition wisely focuses on behavior, not just output. Because when we ignore the context—tools, teams, constraints—we risk judging people for results beyond their control.
Brigitte Charles-Pauvers and her colleagues further distinguish two key performance dimensions:
- Task performance: Actions that directly relate to job-specific goals.
- Contextual performance: Social and psychological behaviors that improve the broader workplace.
This is crucial. A quiet developer who mentors juniors, defuses conflicts, and fosters team spirit is performing—even if their task output is moderate.
The Conditions That Shape Performance
Mitchell and Daniels (2003) proposed a general model of work motivation leading to performance. It includes:
- The physical and social work environment
- The task design
- The reinforcement system (rewards, recognition)
- Social norms and culture
This model reminds us: Performance isn’t a personal trait—it’s a systemic outcome. Competence alone is not enough.
Which brings us to a symbolic formula:
Performance = Competence × Mobilization × Context / Reference Value
- Competence: The person’s skill level
- Mobilization: The translation of motivation into action
- Context: Internal (tools, support) and external (market, politics)
- Reference Value: The target or standard used for comparison
Performance cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. Nor can it be reverse-engineered from KPIs alone.
Setting Objectives: The Antidote to Misleading Metrics
If you don’t define an objective, you cannot define success. And if success is vague, people will optimize what’s visible—often at the expense of what matters.
That’s why we need SMART objectives:
- Specific: Clear and focused
- Measurable: With quantifiable indicators
- Achievable: Realistic within available resources
- Relevant: Aligned with strategic goals
- Time-bound: Set within a timeframe
But SMART goals aren’t enough. They need structure and evaluation. This is where OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) come in.
OKRs: From Intention to Impact
OKRs link aspiration with evidence:
- Objective: A qualitative statement of what you want to achieve
- Key Results: Quantitative indicators that show whether the objective was achieved
An OKR for a product manager might be:
- Objective: Improve user satisfaction
- KR1: Increase NPS from 45 to 60
- KR2: Reduce support tickets by 20%
- KR3: Launch 3 top-requested features
This isn’t about micromanaging tasks—it’s about clarifying purpose.
In fact, a Key Result is like an acceptance criterion for an Objective. Just like in Agile, where a User Story isn’t done until all acceptance criteria are met, an Objective isn’t achieved until its Key Results are fulfilled. Different words. Same logic.
What Happens Without Objectives?
Without a clear goal, measurement becomes manipulation. Employees game the system. Teams fill out forms and dashboards without impact. KPIs become self-serving, not value-generating.
It’s not bad people—it’s bad systems.
Defining goals and success criteria doesn’t just improve performance—it restores meaning. People want to succeed. But they need to know what success looks like.
Team Performance: Still an Open Field
While individual performance is gaining attention, team performance remains under-defined. Some studies point to the role of routines:
- Behavioral routines speed up execution
- Cognitive routines enable quick responses
- Social routines streamline collaboration
Yet these can backfire without vigilance: normalization, laziness, and blind submission.
Organizational structure matters too. For small teams, mesh networks foster exchange. For larger groups, node-based models reduce noise. Conway’s Law reminds us: "Systems mirror the communication structures of the organizations that build them."
Yet corporate performance is not a military operation. Sport and combat analogies fall short. Employees aren’t soldiers or athletes. They didn’t sign up for battle—they signed up to contribute.
What unites these worlds is challenge. The human brain thrives on challenge. But challenge must be meaningful, not artificial. Stressful team-building exercises may build bonds—or break them.
Conclusion
Metrics without meaning are manipulation. Objectives without metrics are dreams.
If we want performance, we need both: clear objectives and honest measurement.
Because when people know what matters, they rise to meet it.
Let’s stop counting time and start counting what counts.