Don't Change the Goalposts
We've all been there – watching a game where one team, frustrated by their inability to score, suggests moving the goalposts "just a little." In sports, this proposition would be immediately rejected as absurd. Yet in organizational settings, we often witness a more subtle version of this same phenomenon: the strategic redefinition of success metrics.
The Allure of Adjustable Targets
Organizations frequently measure their success against industry benchmarks, peer comparisons, and historical data. These comparative metrics provide crucial context about performance and competitive positioning. They tell us not just how we're doing, but how we're doing relative to others – vital information in today's competitive landscape.
But what happens when these comparisons become uncomfortable? When rankings show room for improvement or when benchmarks seem increasingly difficult to achieve? This is where the temptation to "adjust" measurement systems often emerges.
The Shift from External to Internal Metrics
A common pattern emerges: Organizations move from comparative metrics (showing performance relative to peers) to absolute metrics (showing raw numbers without context). Some even attempt to influence outcomes through subtle timing adjustments – like changing when annual assessments occur, hoping a different season might yield more favorable results. The justification often sounds reasonable: "We're focusing on our own journey." "These metrics better reflect our unique situation." "We're simplifying our measurement system." "This timing works better for our cycle."
However, this shift fundamentally changes how success is defined and measured.
Understanding What We Lose
When organizations abandon comparative metrics, they sacrifice:
Competitive Context Raw numbers, while cleaner and simpler, exist in isolation. They tell us where we are but not where we stand.
Industry Insights Benchmarks and rankings provide valuable information about industry trends and standards. Without them, organizations risk operating in a vacuum.
Growth Catalysts The awareness of peer performance often drives innovation and improvement. Comfort with absolute numbers can breed complacency.
The Hidden Costs
Beyond the immediate loss of comparative data, changing success metrics can have subtle but significant impacts:
Team morale may suffer as employees question the motivation behind metric changes
Strategic planning becomes more challenging without competitive context
Long-term performance may decline without external benchmarks driving continuous improvement
Maintaining Metric Integrity
Instead of changing measurement systems when results disappoint, organizations should:
Use challenging metrics as opportunities to identify improvement areas
Maintain consistent measurement systems to ensure meaningful long-term tracking
Embrace both absolute and comparative metrics for a complete performance picture
Focus on process improvements rather than metric adjustments
The Path Forward
True organizational excellence requires courage – the courage to face uncomfortable metrics, to acknowledge areas for improvement, and to maintain high standards even when they're difficult to achieve. Moving goalposts might make scoring easier, but it doesn't create real progress.
Questions to Consider
Before changing any performance metrics, organizations should ask:
What's driving the desire for change?
What insights might we lose?
How will this affect long-term performance and culture?
Are we choosing clarity or comfort?
The Bottom Line
In an era where data drives decisions, the integrity of our metrics matters more than ever. Don't change the goalposts – change the game plan. Focus on genuine improvement rather than metric manipulation. After all, real success isn't about making goals easier to achieve; it's about becoming better at achieving challenging goals.
What metrics matter in your organization? How do you maintain measurement integrity while driving improvement? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.
