3 ms·

While true, I think your additions to the behaviors are rather... useless. Out of the original three, notice that one is the actual behaviour we want to happen

While true, I think your additions to the behaviors are rather... useless. Out of the original three, notice that one is the actual behaviour we want to happen and two are insidious side effects that we want to prevent. Your proposed fourth and fifth outcome behaviours, on the other hand, are neither. Most importantly, they are transient (at least ideally). Either the workforce and the management come to an agreement and metrics continue (or discontinue) or they don't and the business stays in a limbo. It is an emergency (or some other word with lower impact; incident?). There isn't a covert resistance by some teams specifically working against the metric and lowering it while also hiding themselves from notice.

satisfice 2y ago
My additions are important if you want to understand the value of Goodhart’s Law. They are logically necessary for me to make my point— which is that his analysis of the situation is flawed. I am bemused that you deride them, given that they are, in fact, how I have responded to metrics in technical projects since I first developed a metrics program for Borland, in ‘93. (I championed inquiry metrics and opposed control metrics.)
- cutemonster 2y ago
  > inquiry metrics That sounds interesting, how did you do that? What different inquiry metrics did you use if I can ask, what did the others think, how did it all work out?