7 Habits is a self-help/business-focused reconstruction of Covey’s more theologically-founded book Spiritual Roots of Human Relations. If you want Covey’s foundational thoughts on the subjects in 7 Habits, that will be the more informative read.
While I agree with what I read as the premise of the article (that metrics for the sake of metrics is harmful and that qualitative data conversation is a great supplement to quantitative metrics) I wish the post was written with less hyperbole, especially the around big companies and politicians sections.
My take is that quantitative metrics are incredibly useful when paired with strong leadership, a clear mission, and vision statement that give human context to the metrics. That way whenever “the numbers” are brought up, the context and focus are around goals that really matter (are we creating a product that is meaningful and making people’s lives better?) versus cherry-picking and gaming the system to meet KPIs. Quantitative metrics are a dangerous tool since numbers are so easily digestible, so special care should always be given to understand exactly what the metrics are holding people accountable to.
An example that comes to mind in personal life is fitness. Weight is such an easy metric to get your hands on... doubly so since you can quickly judge weight by looking at yourself in the mirror. It’s really easy to tunnel on trying to lose weight! The activities (both physical and mental!) encouraged by fixation on weight can be incredibly destructive. If instead I first start with a strong vision statement that aligns with my values: My body is my most important possession; I want to keep it healthy so I can live a fulfilling life. In the context of that purpose weight is an important metric to keep in mind as a risk factor, but it is also clear that there are a multitude of other metrics that will allow me to measure, stretch, and grow towards a productive end.
It comes down to what kind of people are in the positions. If they are kind of people that only care about numbers not amount of metrics will change that, if they are strong leaders with vision they usually have their custom ways of dealing with metrics.
I think the author of the article is trying to illustrate that the result of even a few metric-cheaters is that over time the entire organization or field is dominated by the metric-cheaters. There is just no way to always keep such people out of your organization once you cross a certain size threshold. So the logical result is that with time, everyone is forced to become more like the metric cheaters just to survive so they either leave or become metric cheaters themselves; in either case the product goes to shit as the creative problem solvers leave.
