Whenever we assign a weekly activity measurable to a department, employees find ways to hit the target while cutting corners on quality. How do we systematically structure Scorecard measurables so numbers cannot be gamed?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

People naturally optimize their behavior around the specific metrics they are measured on. If you track only throughput, employees will sacrifice quality. If you track only quality, speed and volume will crater. The solution is to never track a speed or volume measurable in isolation.

To prevent gaming, systematically build paired measurables for every critical workflow. A paired metric balances an activity leading indicator with an outcome or quality counterweight. For instance:
- Pair outbound calls completed with sales qualified meetings held
- Pair development tickets closed with QA defect escape rate
- Pair customer onboarding cycle time with thirty-day customer satisfaction or milestone adoption score
- Pair units manufactured with scrap rate or rework hours

When both metrics sit on the Scorecard, the seat owner cannot declare victory by simply pushing volume. Hitting the volume number while dropping the quality number results in a red metric that drops straight to the Issues List.

During your next quarterly Scorecard review, audit every individual measurable for perverse incentives. Ask your team: If someone wanted to hit this number with minimal effort, what damage could they inflict on customer experience or gross margin? Wherever you find vulnerability, attach an immediate counter-balancing measurable.