The Metrics Problem in Modern Leadership

The HR team rolled out a new policy for workplace engagement.

On paper, it looked alright. Good intent. But perhaps a bit too idealistic.

But a few of us could see it coming from a mile away.

If this went live, attrition would spike.

People would quietly disengage.

And the ones who stayed would do just enough to get by. Quiet quit.

When those points were raised, they were brushed off as “speculative.”

“Let’s not assume the worst.”

“We don’t believe these series of events will take place”

So the policy went live.

Six months on, the data arrived. As we expected, attrition went up, productivity dipped, morale dropped.

The leader who stepped in then to fix it was praised for being decisive and data-driven. A saviour at the time of desperate need of the company.

The one who warned about it earlier was labelled “emotional” and as someone who “didn’t get it”.

Sadly, this is how organizations function today.

Gut feel is frowned upon because KRAs are built around measurable outcomes.

Instinct doesn’t fit into a spreadsheet.

You can’t present intuition as a bar graph in a quarterly review.

It’s easier to reward what can be measured.

When something breaks, you fix it, and the numbers improve. It’s visible.

You can measure progress, celebrate the hero, and write it into their appraisal.

But when a leader prevents a problem before it surfaces, there’s no data to prove what didn’t happen.

There’s no baseline, no before-and-after. And as a consequence, no applause.

Because the success is invisible.

That’s why so many leaders unconsciously lean toward being fixers instead of preventers.

The system rewards those who arrive at the scene of a crisis, not those who made sure one never occurred.

The heroes work in daylight.

The wise ones, in shadows.

It all boils down to trust.

Trust in a leader’s judgment.

Trust within teams to value foresight over proof.

That trust helps you move faster. Be more decisive. And outpace the competition.