Trial of the Performance Index
It is no surprise to read in a published media report that some entity has raised its completion rate, reduced processing time, and achieved figures better than the previous year.
The results appear reassuring and may indeed deserve praise. However, numbers, no matter how complete they seem, do not always tell us what happened outside the boundaries of what was chosen to be measured.
If an employee’s performance is measured solely by the number of transactions, speeding up the volume may become more important than the quality of the output. If a school’s success is measured only by its pass rate, the indicator may improve without learning improving to the same extent.
When a service is measured only by speed, minutes may decrease while errors increase, or transactions may be returned.
Follow political analyses and news
Explore Middle Eastern products and services
Plan for holiday and seasonal events
This is known in measurement literature as “Goodhart’s Law”: when a measure becomes a target, behavior adapts to it, causing the measure to lose some of its ability to describe the reality it was intended to measure.
Here lies the paradox: people do not need to falsify numbers to mislead us; it is enough that they learn how to succeed according to what is measured, even if the most important part remains outside it. The indicator may genuinely improve while performance quietly drifts away from the goal for which the indicator was designed.
Therefore, single indicators, no matter how shiny, are not enough. A good measure requires something to monitor its impact from the other side. This is where the value of a “Balancing Measure” emerges: if we measure speed, we also measure the error rate or the rate of returned transactions; if we measure quantity, we place quality of the outcome alongside it; if we celebrate achievement, we also ask whether the desired impact was truly realized.
A balancing measure does not hinder achievement; it protects its meaning. It prevents us from gaining a minute but losing quality, raising a percentage but lowering value, or reaching a numerical target while moving away from the purpose for which the target was set. It adds a second weight to success, so that excellence in a single metric does not distort the overall picture.
This meaning evokes the precision of the Quranic expression: “And establish weight with justice and do not make the balance deficient.” The scale does not stand on one side alone, and justice in measurement is not achieved merely by having a number, but by having something that prevents the number from deceiving us.
Perhaps this is why the most dangerous reports in practical life are those that appear complete; they may give us a sense of reassurance before we ask what is missing. The most important question is not: Did the indicator improve? But rather: Did it remain truthful after everyone learned how to improve it?
When a number becomes an end in itself, we may win the indicator but lose what the indicator was originally designed to protect.
A Kuwaiti writer
