I have a more pessimistic take on this KPI stuff. You absolutely can get great outcomes without putting KPIs or metrics on a pedestal. And for sure, metrics sh

I have a more pessimistic take on this KPI stuff. You absolutely can get great outcomes without putting KPIs or metrics on a pedestal. And for sure, metrics should work for the employees; employees shouldn’t work for the metrics. The problem is that this kind of falls apart in large organizations because, from the perspective of CEOs, execs, and upper management, leaving wiggle room requires placing a high degree of trust in line teams or unscaleable micromanagement. And you can argue that the high degree of trust should be given, but bluntly, unless your employees are very well coordinated and your management team is really on top of their game, a lot of teams will flounder without clear goals. Now as an IC that sounds like bullshit, but let me ask you: have you ever seen a team that seems like they basically didn’t do anything? What did that team have in commmon? Usually it’s at least two of 1. a lack of clear goals 2. low to average levels of motivation and personal ownership 3. low to average levels of skill. If you’re on this website discussing software and KPIs in your free time you’re probably above average in motivation and skill. But I’m sure you know that without clear goals, people just working to put food on the table tend not to have the business interest and drive to create actually-valuable work. If you can keep your business small enough that pockets of low-productivity can’t fly under the radar, or somehow hire only motivated, skilled people that stay motivated and skilled years after they’re hired, you probably do need thing like KPIs to hold teams accountable. Not your team necessarily, but if say 10-20% of teams will flounder without KPIs, it’s probably just good policy to have it, even when it annoys the other 80% of teams, as long as you don’t add pathological processes around the KPIs.