You’re going to be measured in your performance no matter what, whether you like it or not. Therefore, why not just define the measurements yourself and be proactive about it? That way, you can control the measures which are used, the metrics, and goals, making it much easier (and more realistic for you) than having outside imposed measures.
Let’s step back, I’m jumping to the conclusion before explaining my thinking.
There are three main assumptions behind the above argument. The first is that, that which is measured, improves. In my experience, there’s a deep truth to that, perhaps for esoteric reasons that make no sense. Or more prosaically and simply, perhaps because when you’re focusing on improving a particular number, you’re always thinking about what you can do to improve that number. Conversely, you don’t do this if it is a more abstract desire for improvement. Personal examples include:
- Every time in my life that I’ve wanted to lose weight, I’ve lost more weight by keeping a daily chart as compared to the eras in my life when I didn’t keep measurements like that.
- Same applies to my blood pressure.
- I like meeting people and when I use spreadsheets to track people I want to meet and how many meetings I’ve had, I’ve always met more than eras when I was informal about my tracking.
- In eras when I’m tracking closely how much money I’m making, I’ve made much more than in eras when I wasn’t tracking that.
Cause and effect? Causation and correlation? Randomness? A result of human psychology? The Magic of Math? I’m not sharing an opinion on that here (unless we meet up for a drink; hey I love meeting people and this line here is an Easter Egg of sorts to see if anyone does indeed read this and follow my suggestions!) but something is happening there.
The second assumption is that your client or boss will want to measure your performance in some way. In bigger companies, that is part and parcel of how things are done. In smaller companies, not so much. In both cases, sophisticated managers love tools like “KPI-s” to track performance. So the bigger your client or company, or the more sophisticated, the more likely this is to happen. And if they’re small and unsophisticated? They’ll appreciate it and value you more.
The third assumption is that he who defines the numbers can define the numbers in a way that is for their benefit. I’ve argued in a previous chapter that history is written by the victors. By writing history, you help yourself become the victor. Here I’m expanding the argument to apply it not just to stories, but data as well.
Said differently, a psychological hesitation that many may have about doing this is that, on the surface, it sounds and feels like it will apply pressure to you. Maybe it does, but maybe that’s not so bad! But my argument is that the downside of having a bit more pressure is worth the three upsides of it. Firstly, the additional pressure will likely lead to you performing better. Secondly, applying pressure in this way will make your boss or client love you even more. Thirdly, since you can define the metrics through which you’re measured as well as the targets, then you can define them in a way so that it’s not all that much pressure for you.
