Sure. Some context may be needed. I suppose my views are formed in this way partially, because I became an MBA after having soul crushing jobs, which does tend

Sure. Some context may be needed. I suppose my views are formed in this way partially, because I became an MBA after having soul crushing jobs, which does tend to change your perspective a little bit ( and give you an insight into what is going on in a head of the front line drone that is forced to implement orders the best way he/she can ). << "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it" 1. It is wrong in a literal sense. You obviously can. Maybe you should not ( which is a valid question to ask ), but you absolutely can manage things and not measure everything. 2. It is wrong when taken metaphorically to a logical conclusion. The mantra seems to encourage ( and did encourage based on some of the things managers tried to measure -- lines of code come to mind ) measuring everything. In accounting, there is a concept similar law's 'de minimis' ( I kinda don't want to use that name, because I worry people wills start questioning that from tax perspective, which is its own animal I don't want to touch, but in practical terms, the name matches the concept exactly - basically 'too small to matter'), where accounting for some items in some processes is borderline pointless ( say a screw ). Every so often, people in accounting classes go 'but what if', 'but we can track it'. And the answer is invariably: 'You can, but is it worth it?' Naturally, you could counter it with: 'Well, you don't know if you don't measure it.', but there has to be a point at which the tracking of atoms get too crazy. So that is my basic thought on the matter. I can expand a little more, but I think that covers it. Note, I am not saying it is not worth it to measure stuff. I am saying it is important to be discriminating over what you pick to measure, because, people being people, will optimize for it.