By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article examines the potential negative consequences that can arise from an overemphasis on quantitative performance metrics in the workplace, such as increased stress, risk of burnout, and lack of innovation, and presents an argument for integrating a more holistic and well-rounded approach to performance measurement that considers both quantitative and qualitative factors in order to promote employee well-being, engagement, and organizational sustainability in the long run. Drawing on research from psychology, leadership, and organizational behavior, the article analyzes case studies of companies that have successfully shifted to more balanced metrics and provides recommendations for how organizational leaders can audit existing practices and pilot test alternative approaches to achieve benefits to stakeholders while supporting mission-critical strategic goals.
In today’s data-driven business world, performance is everything. Organizations of all types and sizes have come to rely heavily on quantitative metrics to measure success, evaluate employees, and make strategic decisions. However, an unhealthy obsession with numbers and results can paradoxically undermine an organization's long-term goals if not properly balanced with other qualitative factors.
Today we will examine how overemphasizing performance metrics in the workplace can potentially damage employee well-being, stunt innovation, and hinder true organizational success. Drawing from research on psychology, leadership, and organizational behavior, we will explore practical recommendations for incorporating a more holistic view of performance that supports sustainability rather than short-term gains.
Focusing Too Narrowly on Performance Risks Burnout and Turnover
A common pitfall for organizations is an overreliance on quantifiable metrics like sales figures, productivity rates, error counts, and completion times to gauge individual employee performance. While numbers provide useful data, they only tell part of the story and do not account for qualitative aspects of work like collaboration, problem-solving skills, or commitment to the organizational mission (Fried & Hansson, 2010). When numerical targets become the sole determinant of success or failure, employees experience immense pressure to constantly maximize outputs, with little regard for well-being (Selye, 1976).
Research has shown this type of “quantified self” approach can increase stress, anxiety, and job dissatisfaction over time (Stanton & Barnes-Farrell, 1996). Prolonged states of heightened stress are detrimental to both physical and mental health, potentially leading to exhaustion, depression, and even chronic disease (Cox et al., 2000). Additionally, when metrics become the end goal rather than a means to an end, creativity and innovation may be stifled as employees focus narrowly on hitting targets instead of exploring new solutions (Amabile & Kramer, 2011).
The consequences of this mindset can include increased absenteeism, higher turnover rates, and lower overall engagement as burnout takes its toll (Shannon, 2008; Young et al., 2019). At SAS, a tech company known for its strong company culture, leaders realized quantitative performance reviews were actually driving away top talent and compromising values of trust and autonomy. The company shifted to a more holistic “360-degree feedback” model that also considers peer reviews, personal development goals, and manager observations (Bersin, 2016). This small but meaningful change helped SAS retain top talent and maintain success over decades despite the Silicon Valley job market’s hyper-focus on metrics.
Balancing Measurement with Meaning
Rather than abandoning metrics altogether, a balanced approach incorporates both qualitative and quantitative factors to create a more well-rounded understanding of performance. Research supports the idea that finding meaning and purpose in one’s work helps buffer against stress and burnout (Dik et al., 2013; Steger et al., 2012). Organizations would do well to consider how the following recommendations could help foster employee well-being, engagement, and longevity alongside quantitative goals:
Setting SMART Goals: Goals should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound. Broader organizational missions and personal development objectives give employees a sense of direction beyond chasing arbitrary numbers.
Emphasizing Core Values: Framing performance in the context of an organization's values like integrity, customer service, innovation or teamwork shifts the focus from outputs alone to supporting wider strategic aims.
Surveying Job Satisfaction: Anonymous periodic surveys can gather qualitative feedback to proactively address issues like workload stress, lack of autonomy, unclear expectations before they impact retention.
Promoting Work-Life Balance: Flexible schedules, unlimited PTO, health/wellness perks signal that output is not the only priority and support employees' whole well-being.
Recognizing Contributions: Publicly acknowledging efforts, skills developed, problems solved, clients served in addition to raw metrics shows qualitative aspects are valued.
Cultivating Growth Mindsets: Coaching, mentorship, and developmental feedback enhances skills long-term rather than just chasing quick wins which risk complacency.
These supplement quantitative performance assessment with a more holistic, human-centered approach that directly supports employee engagement, innovation, and the sustainability of organizational success. When infused throughout culture and practices, they can help prevent the negative ramifications of an excessive focus on results at the cost of well-being.
Case Study: Shifting from Output to Outcomes at Kaiser Permanente
A real-world example of rebalancing metrics with meaning comes from healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente. For decades, the organization had focused heavily on productivity metrics like patient volume, operating costs, length of stay and error rates to evaluate hospital and clinical performance. However, leaders began to notice some concerning trends. Physicians reported high stress, burnout, and "assembly-line" feelings as they rushed through back-to-back appointments with little flexibility (Toussaint & Berry, 2013). Medical errors were also on the rise, as was staff turnover.
Kaiser made the strategic decision to shift from an output focus to emphasizing patient outcomes. New metrics centered on important health factors like blood pressure and cholesterol control, preventive screenings received, hospital readmissions avoided. This strategic change had wide-ranging positive impacts. With outcomes as the goal, care teams were empowered with flexibility in how they spent time with patients. Physician well-being and satisfaction improved as work became more patient-centered than production-driven. Quality of care metrics like those above saw steady increases. Costs were also reduced through fewer errors and readmissions.
Most significantly, patient experience measures like would recommend and overall health status rose sharply. This case demonstrates that reframing measurements around the people an organization ultimately serves—whether customers or community members—allows intrinsic motivation to replace external pressure as the driver of performance. When people feel they are making a meaningful impact, performance tends to follow.
Recommendations for Organizational Leaders
To implement a balanced, holistic view of success in their own organizations, leaders would be wise to consider the following recommendations:
Audit existing metrics to identify where an overemphasis on outputs may be compromising well-being, innovation, or strategic goals. Shift priorities as needed.
Educate managers on research linking well-being to performance so qualitative factors are not neglected. Institute coaching to strengthen these skills.
Involve employees in designing metrics that better capture their contributions and developmental progress over time.
Communicate the "why" behind strategic changes transparently to gain buy-in. Explain how a broader view of success ultimately serves customers, community and the bottom line.
Pilot test alternative approaches before wide implementation. Gather both qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate impacts on key indicators like engagement, retention, customer experience.
Celebrate qualitative successes alongside quantitative wins through recognition programs, case studies, and leadership communications.
Monitor outcomes longitudinally to ensure intended benefits are realized and any new issues addressed early through ongoing review and refinement.
Adopting such recommendations allows numbers to inform decisions without obscuring the humanity at the heart of any thriving organization. Leaders who both measure performance and nurture purpose, well-being and growth will build success sustainably for all stakeholders over the long term.
Conclusion
In today's data-driven world, metrics play an important role in understanding organizational performance. However, overemphasizing outputs and results to the detriment of employees' well-being, innovation, and core strategic objectives can prove counterproductive. Research shows qualitative factors like meaning, engagement and work-life integration directly impact performance indicators as well. Through balancing measurement with humanity, organizations like Kaiser Permanente demonstrate how shifting perspectives from outputs to outcomes better serves people in a sustainable way that bolsters long-term success. By assessing existing practices, involving employees, and pilot testing new holistic approaches, leaders anywhere can mitigate risks of burnout while improving wellness, retention and results for years to come.
References
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work. Harvard Business Review, 89(11), 72-81.
Bersin, J. (2016, November 10). SAS: How an analytics innovator successfully balanced culture and growth. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2016/11/10/sas-how-an-analytics-innovator-successfully-balanced-culture-and-growth/?sh=2218e1f57353
Cox, T., Griffiths, A., Barlow, C., Randall, R., Thomson, L., & Rial-Gonzalez, E. (2000). Organisational interventions for work stress: A risk management approach. Health and Safety Executive.
Dik, B. J., Byrne, Z. S., & Steger, M. F. (2013). Purpose and meaning in the workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14183-000
Fried, Y., & Hansson, R. O. (2010). Moving forward with work-nonwork boundary management theory. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(1), 27-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01219.x
Selye, H. (1976). The stress concept. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 115(8), 718.
Shannon, J. (2008). Managing stress: Improving your physical, mental and emotional well-being. LifeMatters.
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160
Stanton, J. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (1996). Effects of electronic performance monitoring on personal control, task satisfaction, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 738–745. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.738
Toussaint, J., & Berry, L. L. (2013). The promise of lean in health care. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88(1), 74-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.07.025
Young, S., Sturts, J. R., Ross, C. M., & Kim, K. T. (2019). Physical exhaustion and emotional distress on hotel employees: A gender comparative study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 304-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.08.002
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Judging Success by the Numbers: How an Overemphasis on Performance Metrics Can Damage Your Organization. Human Capital Leadership Review, 11(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.11.4.1
