Measurement sits at the centre of modern governance, management, and
policy. Indicators are constructed to clarify objectives, track progress, and
ensure accountability across increasingly complex systems. Yet when those
measures are rigidly converted into targets, distortions emerge. Charles
Goodhart’s 1970s theory, that once a measure becomes a target, it loses its
value, remains profoundly relevant. His warning underlines the danger of
mistaking an evaluative tool for the very purpose of an organisation. In a
world dominated by metrics, the implications of this insight warrant critical
re-examination.
Goodhart’s Law encapsulates a paradox: metrics designed to improve
oversight alter behaviour in ways that undermine their own validity. Efforts
and resources shift towards meeting numerical benchmarks, often at the expense
of broader values. The consequences are evident across various domains,
including healthcare, finance, education, corporate governance, and
sustainability. Yet the problem does not lie in measurement itself, but in
elevating measurement into an ultimate end. Recognising this distinction is
essential for sustaining organisational resilience in data-driven contexts.
Performance, as a concept, is particularly vulnerable to these dynamics.
Institutions naturally pursue demonstrable success, but the definition of
success varies according to sectoral expectations, cultural values, and
strategic priorities. Quantitative measures provide clarity and comparability,
yet their dominance risks incentivising superficial compliance, manipulation,
or short-term maximisation. Over time, these distortions can produce
inefficiency and even systemic fragility. To counter such tendencies, leaders
and policymakers must develop evaluative systems that strike a balance between
accountability, adaptability, and integrity.
Performance as a Foundation of Organisational Success
Performance remains the most visible expression of institutional
effectiveness, signalling whether organisations achieve their mission in areas
such as profitability, service delivery, or social responsibility. Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) connect operational activity with strategic
objectives, enabling monitoring and accountability. Intelligently designed,
they promote transparency and inform decision-making, aligning resources with
stakeholder priorities. However, the numerical dimension of performance
captures only part of organisational reality. Without careful
contextualisation, metrics risk obscuring the intangible but decisive qualities
that sustain genuine success.
Trust, innovation, and workforce engagement often underpin enduring
organisational advantage. Pharmaceutical companies that combine shareholder
returns with consistent investment in research and development illustrate this
point. While indicators capture short-term productivity, long-term resilience
stems from knowledge creation, ethical responsibility, and employee commitment.
These intangible factors resist straightforward quantification but remain
indispensable. Metrics thus serve as valuable guides only when supplemented by
institutional cultures that recognise quality beyond numbers. Success measured
solely through performance dashboards risks ignoring the foundations that
sustain competitiveness.
Organisational culture further shapes how performance is understood and
enacted. Google provides a pertinent illustration: the organisation aligns
flexible metrics with a culture of innovation, enabling creativity while
retaining strategic focus. Instead of constraining employees with rigid
targets, Google integrates evaluation into a broader ethos of experimentation
and learning. In such contexts, numerical performance is not the end goal but a
reflection of deeper organisational values. This suggests that performance
should be understood less as a fixed outcome and more as an evolving cultural
attribute.
Public service institutions demonstrate similar tensions. Within the NHS,
waiting-time targets initially improved efficiency by reducing delays. Yet the
same targets often distracted attention from holistic patient care, with
administrators at times prioritising easier cases to meet benchmarks. This
dynamic highlights the risks of equating performance solely with compliance.
Authentic organisational success requires aligning metrics with underlying
missions. Efficiency should support rather than distort the purpose of public
service. Numbers, in other words, must remain subordinate to substantive
institutional goals.
Why Organisational Performance Declines
Performance frequently declines when measurement is pursued as an end in
itself. Rigid adherence to narrow indicators discourages experimentation,
suppresses initiative, and reduces adaptability. In volatile environments,
where resilience depends on flexibility, the dominance of metrics can prove
especially destructive. The paradox is that attempts to enforce accountability
through strict targets may undermine the very systems they are meant to
strengthen. Organisational fragility, rather than robustness, often results
from overreliance on quantification.
The 2008 financial crisis offers a striking example. Banks pursued
return-on-equity targets while exploiting loopholes in capital adequacy rules.
These practices created the appearance of stability while masking underlying
fragility. When shocks occurred, the system collapsed, resulting in devastating
global consequences. Post-crisis reforms, such as Basel III, introduced
stricter requirements to prevent repetition. Yet added complexity also
generated new distortions, allowing banks to engage in regulatory arbitrage.
This cycle illustrates Goodhart’s warning: measurement systems, when elevated
to ultimate ends, invite behaviours that corrode resilience.
Education provides another case. League tables, introduced to improve
transparency, encouraged schools to narrow curricula and prioritise examination
scores. Teachers, constrained by external scrutiny, often prioritise producing
measurable results over fostering creativity and critical thinking. While
accountability improved, the broader purposes of education were compromised.
This pattern demonstrates that institutional decline does not necessarily stem
from poor performance, but rather from systems that are misaligned with
multifaceted objectives. When measurement displaces mission, education risks
becoming a hollow exercise in statistical compliance.
Healthcare reveals similar distortions. Waiting-time targets, although
initially effective, occasionally encouraged administrators to manipulate
figures or prioritise less urgent cases to meet goals. The result was a
semblance of efficiency, but no genuine improvement. Decline arose not through
incompetence but through the unintended consequences of rigid metrics. These
cases demonstrate that a narrow reliance on numbers can substitute for symbolic
compliance, eroding trust in institutions. Over time, performance systems
designed to improve accountability may inadvertently accelerate organisational
decline.
Achieving High Organisational Performance
Sustained high performance depends on aligning measurement with
meaningful objectives. Success is not achieved by abandoning indicators but by
embedding them within strategies that prioritise adaptability, innovation, and
integrity. Numerical indicators must be treated as supportive tools, guiding
improvement rather than constraining action. Institutions that strike this
balance between quantitative accountability and qualitative depth are better
positioned to maintain high performance under conditions of uncertainty and
complexity.
Total Quality Management (TQM) provides a constructive model. By
embedding quality into every organisational process, TQM encourages continuous
improvement and stakeholder trust. Toyota’s lean management system demonstrates
the principle in practice: long-term efficiency and process integrity take
precedence over short-term targets. Measurement retains value in this system
precisely because it functions within a culture of improvement rather than as
an isolated goal. Organisations that adopt similar philosophies avoid the
distortions associated with target-driven regimes, sustaining resilience and
competitiveness.
Leadership is equally decisive. Transformational leaders contextualise
metrics within a broader organisational vision, preventing them from becoming
distorting forces. Within healthcare, for instance, leaders who frame
waiting-time targets in relation to patient-centred outcomes achieve more
authentic improvements than those who focus narrowly on compliance. By
situating indicators within narratives of purpose and care, leaders transform
numbers into tools for learning and progress, rather than mere indicators of superficial
conformity. Leadership thus converts measurement from a limiting mechanism into
a source of meaning and purpose.
Resilience further underpins sustained success. The COVID-19 pandemic
revealed the benefits of institutions that had developed flexible systems of
measurement. Organisations with rigid performance regimes struggled to adapt to
disruption, while those with dynamic leadership and cultures of innovation
managed to sustain operations. Public health dashboards, though at times crude,
enabled rapid resource allocation when combined with professional judgement.
These experiences suggest that resilience emerges when indicators are embedded
within adaptive frameworks, ensuring that measurement supports survival and
renewal under stress.
When Measurement Works: Counterarguments to Goodhart’s
Law
Despite its resonance, Goodhart’s Law does not render all targets futile.
In specific contexts, rigid measurement has achieved transformative outcomes.
The challenge lies in distinguishing circumstances where numerical discipline
supports rather than undermines organisational purpose. Analysing these
counterexamples deepens understanding of when measurement succeeds.
Singapore’s education reforms illustrate this possibility. By tightly
coupling performance targets with sustained investment in teacher development
and curricular innovation, the system avoided many distortions seen elsewhere.
Rigorous assessment coexisted with a commitment to professional growth,
enabling improved outcomes without undermining broader educational aims. The
case demonstrates that targets can drive long-term improvement when embedded
within holistic frameworks that recognise both qualitative and quantitative
dimensions.
Climate governance provides another example. International targets for
carbon reduction, such as those enshrined in the Paris Agreement, have spurred
governments and corporations into action. While compliance varies, the
existence of clear numerical thresholds has concentrated political will,
channelled investment into renewable technologies, and encouraged public
accountability. Here, measurement operates as a galvanising force rather than a
distorting one, signalling ambition and providing benchmarks against which
progress can be evaluated.
Public health during the COVID-19 pandemic further demonstrates how
metrics can support resilience. Infection rates, hospitalisation figures, and
vaccination coverage provided essential dashboards for decision-makers. While
not flawless, these indicators enabled rapid responses and resource allocation
that saved lives. The success lay in combining metrics with professional
expertise, ensuring that numbers informed rather than replaced judgment. This
counterexample confirms that measurement can, under specific conditions,
provide indispensable support for organisational resilience and public trust.
Theoretical Perspectives on Measurement
Several theoretical frameworks illuminate why measurement so often
distorts behaviour. Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) explains how monitoring
regimes create incentives for opportunism. When measures become rigid targets,
individuals usually exploit loopholes, prioritising compliance over genuine
improvement. This perspective clarifies why regulation frequently produces
gaming behaviours: systems alter incentives but not necessarily in ways
consistent with institutional missions.
The Resource-Based View (RBV) highlights another dimension.
Organisational advantage often rests on intangible resources such as knowledge,
culture, and innovation. These qualities resist easy quantification, yet they
underpin long-term competitiveness. When performance systems prioritise
measurable outputs at the expense of these intangibles, institutions drift
towards short-termism. Goodhart’s Law aligns with this critique: an obsession
with numbers erodes the very capabilities that generate enduring advantage.
Complexity theory reframes organisations as adaptive systems
characterised by interdependence and feedback. Linear targets disrupt these
dynamics, producing rigidity and unintended consequences. Systems thinking
suggests that attempts at control through simple metrics are inadequate in
complex environments. By contrast, flexible frameworks that allow for feedback
and adaptation sustain resilience. Goodhart’s insight thus resonates with
complexity theory: numerical control rarely accommodates the realities of
evolving organisational life.
Behavioural economics adds a psychological dimension. Excessive reliance
on extrinsic incentives can weaken intrinsic motivations, such as professional
pride, ethical responsibility, or creativity. This crowding-out effect has been
observed in various settings, including teaching, healthcare, and corporate
environments. Goodhart’s Law intersects here: numerical targets risk replacing
authentic engagement with instrumental compliance. Together, these theories
reinforce the systemic nature of distortion, revealing that it arises not as an
exception but as a predictable feature of metric-driven governance.
Contemporary Case Studies: Beyond Conventional Examples
Recent developments highlight the continuing relevance of Goodhart’s Law
in new contexts. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting, for
instance, has become a central mechanism for evaluating corporate
responsibility. While designed to promote transparency and sustainability, ESG
indicators are vulnerable to manipulation. Organisations may engage in
“greenwashing,” presenting favourable numbers while avoiding substantive
reform. The case illustrates how well-intentioned metrics can risk becoming
symbolic tools of compliance unless they are embedded within robust evaluative
cultures.
Artificial intelligence has introduced new forms of measurement.
AI-driven dashboards promise real-time monitoring of performance, enabling
unprecedented oversight and control. Yet algorithmic metrics can create fresh
distortions. For example, recruitment platforms using AI to optimise candidate
selection have been criticised for embedding bias. Here, the pursuit of
numerical optimisation undermines fairness and diversity. The case shows that
technological sophistication does not eliminate the risks identified by
Goodhart but can instead exacerbate them in subtle ways.
Global South experiences add further perspective. In Kenya, the adoption
of mobile money platforms such as M-Pesa was initially assessed through narrow
financial inclusion metrics. While uptake figures appeared impressive, they
obscured disparities in access and literacy that limited more profound
development benefits. This illustrates how indicators may overstate progress
when they neglect broader social contexts. For evaluative systems to remain
credible, they must integrate local realities rather than rely solely on
standardised numerical benchmarks.
Pandemic public health dashboards also reveal both strengths and
weaknesses. While infection counts and vaccination rates provided clarity, they
sometimes diverted attention from qualitative factors such as mental health or
social inequality. Nations with flexible strategies, such as New Zealand,
combine metrics with community engagement and trust-building, producing more
resilient outcomes. Others, focusing narrowly on numbers, experienced
compliance fatigue and a decline in public confidence. This contrast underscores
the importance of integrating measurement within broader frameworks of
governance and trust.
Legislation, Governance, and Regulation
Legislation plays a decisive role in structuring the relationship between
measurement and accountability. Within the NHS, the Health and Social Care Act
2012 codified target-driven approaches, reinforcing efficiency while exposing
the limits of numerical compliance. Gains in transparency were offset by
distortions in patient care, illustrating the risks of legislating performance
targets without integrating qualitative safeguards.
Consumer protection frameworks present an alternative model. The UK
Consumer Rights Act 2015 enshrines quality expectations that extend beyond
measurable indicators, requiring goods and services to meet reasonable
standards of quality. This demonstrates how law can anchor accountability in
substantive value rather than numerical compliance. By codifying expectations
of fairness and quality, legislation protects stakeholders against the
limitations of metric-driven governance.
Financial regulation further demonstrates the paradox of measurement.
Basel III sought to harmonise global standards after the 2008 crisis by
tightening capital requirements. While addressing some vulnerabilities, its
complexity encouraged new opportunities for regulatory arbitrage.
Standardisation, although essential, proved insufficient to guarantee
resilience. The case highlights the difficulty of relying on increasingly
elaborate measurement frameworks to govern complex systems.
Governance must therefore remain adaptive. Excessive reliance on rigid
metrics undermines legitimacy and trust, both in institutions and in
regulators. Effective frameworks strike a balance between quantitative
accountability and qualitative oversight, allowing for contextual flexibility
and adaptability. Numbers clarify performance, but they cannot fully define it.
Governance succeeds when measurement serves as one component of a wider system
of responsibility, integrating professional judgement, stakeholder trust, and
ethical commitment.
Beyond Metrics: Towards New Evaluative Models
Metrics clarify performance, but they cannot capture the full complexity
of organisational life. Quality-based approaches, therefore, offer a necessary
complement. Organisations that embed quality into culture and practice reduce
the risk of gaming behaviours and preserve integrity. Goodhart’s Law highlights
this imperative, reminding institutions that numbers illuminate but do not
define success.
Corporate scandals such as Volkswagen’s emissions manipulation reveal the
dangers of prioritising compliance over responsibility. The company achieved
formal success against regulatory metrics while eroding trust, reputation, and
long-term value. By contrast, trading entities that integrate quality as a
guiding principle avoid such pitfalls, sustaining both competitiveness and
legitimacy. Measurement must therefore be subordinated to the pursuit of
substantive value.
Total Quality Management exemplifies this approach. Toyota’s lean
production system integrates metrics with continuous learning, efficiency, and
trust. Performance indicators are treated not as rigid ends but as tools for
refinement. The model demonstrates how quality-centred strategies outperform
metric-dominated ones, maintaining resilience over decades. Rather than
negating measurement, this philosophy situates it within a broader system of
organisational excellence.
Legislative safeguards further reinforce the pursuit of quality. The
Consumer Rights Act 2015 ensures accountability to stakeholders beyond narrow
performance measures, mandating that organisations deliver reasonable quality
as a legal obligation. Such frameworks remind institutions that accountability
extends beyond dashboards and targets. Embedding quality in law, governance,
and organisational culture provides a necessary counterweight to the
distortions predicted by Goodhart’s Law.
Summary - Measurement and Organisational Behaviour
Goodhart’s Law remains a vital critique of measurement-driven governance.
Its central warning, that measures lose value when transformed into targets, retains
relevance across finance, healthcare, education, and corporate life. The law
encapsulates an enduring dilemma: accountability demands measurement, yet
measurement risks distortion. It has been argued that the challenge is not to
abandon metrics but to integrate them into evaluative frameworks that preserve
integrity, adaptability, and quality. The balance between clarity and
complexity remains the defining task of modern governance.
Theoretical perspectives deepen this analysis. Transaction Cost Economics
highlights opportunism; the Resource-Based View emphasises neglected
intangibles; complexity theory reveals the limits of linear control; and
behavioural economics demonstrates the crowding-out of intrinsic motivation.
Together, these insights confirm that distortion is systemic rather than
exceptional. Theories converge to suggest that measurement alone cannot
safeguard resilience. Instead, numbers must be situated within broader frameworks
that account for both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of performance.
Case studies confirm these lessons. Financial crises, healthcare reforms,
and educational targets reveal the distortions that emerge when numbers
dominate. Corporate scandals, such as those involving Wells Fargo and
Volkswagen, demonstrate how measurement cultures can foster manipulation. Yet
counterexamples, including Singapore’s education reforms, climate targets, and
pandemic dashboards, show that targets can sometimes succeed when embedded
within holistic frameworks. These contrasts highlight the need to distinguish
when metrics clarify and when they corrupt.
The enduring message is clear: measurement must remain a tool, not a
purpose. Indicators guide evaluation but cannot replace professional judgement,
organisational culture, or stakeholder trust. By embedding metrics within
adaptive, quality-centred frameworks, institutions can mitigate distortion
while preserving resilience and legitimacy. Goodhart’s Law, therefore, serves
not merely as a critique but as a reminder to reimagine evaluative models.
Measurement illuminates progress, but the mission must always transcend the
numbers that seek to define it.
Additional articles can be
found at Supply Chain Management Made Easy. This site looks at supply
chain management issues to assist organisations and people in increasing the
quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of their product and service supply to
the customers' delight. ©️ Supply Chain Management Made Easy. All rights
reserved.
