Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Darin Fox's avatar

I had not heard of Goodhart's law before this morning. Yet this is the 2nd article I've read in as many hours that mentions it. So I feel the universe has compelled me to respond with a comment.

I think this idea is particularly interesting when I apply it to how organisations measure expertise.

We create competency frameworks, technical career ladders, promotion criteria, utilisation measures, patents, publications, certifications...

All potentially useful and necessary. However, eventually people get very good at producing the evidence the system has told them represents expertise. And organisations who need to make decisions on leadership potential or career development of internal experts get addicted to these metrics.

I worry whether organisations sometimes lose sight of more important, less superficial, questions:

- What value has been created because of this person's expertise?

- Are we making better decisions because we are listening to their advice?

- Are more difficult problems being solved?

- Are we able to do things we couldn't previously do?

- Are risks being recognised earlier?

- Has the expert ensured the organisation is less dependent on them?

Those things are considerably harder to put in a spreadsheet or a 9-box grid.

Which is probably why the spreadsheet so often wins.

No posts

Ready for more?