We understand that our weekly Scorecard should focus on leading indicators, but we are struggling to differentiate between a weekly activity we can fully control and a weekly leading indicator that we only influence. How do we balance controllable activity metrics with actual results-based leading indicators on our leadership Scorecard?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

To build a highly predictive weekly Scorecard, you must understand the distinction between a controllable leading activity and an influential leading indicator. A leading activity is a pure input that a team member has absolute control over, such as making thirty sales outreach calls. A leading indicator is the immediate output of those activities, such as scheduling five qualified sales discovery meetings.

Your weekly Scorecard should contain a healthy balance of both. If you only track activities, you risk rewarding busywork that does not produce results. If you only track leading indicators, you may struggle to diagnose why a number is red because you are not measuring the underlying effort required to drive that result.

To find this balance, map your core operational processes. For example, in your sales process, the ultimate lagging indicator is closed revenue. The weekly leading indicator is the dollar value of proposals sent. The weekly leading activities are the number of outbound calls made and the number of demos completed.

If your proposals sent metric is red, you must look at the activity metrics to see if the team simply did not make enough calls, or if the calls are happening but not converting.

By aligning your controllable weekly activities with your influential leading indicators, you create a clear diagnostic map that allows your leadership team to identify exactly where your operations are breaking down before it impacts your bottom line.