Numbers can tell the truth but they can also contribute to cover-ups. Just consider the widely variable ways the COVID-19 numbers were reported by media and government departments around the world. Apparent severity depended on whether one was reporting infections versus cases versus hospitalisations, and so on. One popular book, The Tyranny of Metrics by Jerry Muller, raises the critical perspective that some managers are fixated on measurement as an end in itself.79 He proposes that the pressure to quantify performance can lead to ‘gaming the stats’ or ‘teaching to the test’. He acknowledges that metrics are best used to complement rather than replace judgement based on personal experience. Organisational cultures that celebrate gaming and manipulation can emerge from a fixation on numbers. The 2018 Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry in Australia revealed many instances of this sort of gaming and reward system based on metrics at the expense of human relations and basic ethics.80 Muller’s book makes a convincing argument that judgement and ethical considerations need to become more central to decision making and performance achievement. The situated judgement of experienced professionals is rarely expressed in a spreadsheet or graph. It comes out in human relations and daily social communications and, perhaps, cannot be scientifically replicated by others with different or fewer experiences.
Reflection question
Sometimes coming up with a number to explain and define organisational aspects is important. For example, staff turnover and absenteeism percentages are crucial numerical indicators of whether something about organisational behaviour needs to be fixed. But what other data need to be understood to make some sort of positive change; for example, to lower staff turnover and reduce absenteeism, and are those other data always quantitative?