You Get What You Measure

"Results-Driven, Solid ROI, Quantifiable Outcomes"

When these terms are used to describe a leader, the reaction is likely to be very positive. These phrases conjure up images of a successful "producer,” someone who accomplishes goals and gets things done. The individual may contribute greatly to the bottom line of the organization. Who wouldn't want such a person as a company leader? The reality is that many organizations don't - and most shouldn't.

This is bold statement is intended to evoke strong immediate response.  But step back from the surface of the description above and look a bit deeper.  The discussion concerns leaders and a few key qualities are missing from that superstar profile. Absent from the descriptive terms are the soft qualities of a leader, attributes that are more difficult to effectively measure. They include:

1. Compassion: A great leader cares about people. While an overuse of compassion hampers a leader's ability to manage difficult developmental conversations, some degree of caring has to manifest itself in the leader's daily interactions with staff, peers, clients and superiors.  The antonym of compassion is arrogance. That attribute that has toppled many otherwise "successful" individuals.
2. Sense of Team: The workplace is increasingly complex. Matrix work relationships are common in many organizations. Most organizational projects require support from cross-functional experts. Those who cannot operate comfortably and effectively in a team environment will struggle to succeed as leaders.
3. Trust: The single most important attribute that any leader must possess is the ability to win - and retain - the trust of direct reports and others. Trust is the capital that sustains a leader when the inevitable difficult times emerge. Employees will listen, accept and follow a leader through the darkest times if that leader has consistently demonstrated that he or she can be trusted to do what's right for the group as a whole.

The human resources profession is placing increasingly stronger emphasis on human capital metrics; that is, measuring the effectiveness of employee-focused strategies. In many cases, these metrics are also being applied to the evaluation of individual leader effectiveness. Organizations must guard against reliance on a preponderance of bottom-line focused metrics and ensure that balance exists. It is equally, if not more important to gauge the leader's performance on true human-focused competencies such as those listed above.

If the concept seems difficult to accept, consider two recent examples of results-oriented rainmakers who have stirred significant controversy and created chaos in human relationships within their organizations.  Lead actor Charlie Sheen is credited with a major role in the success of the television series, Two and a Half Men. However, his incredibly poor human relations skills caused his employer to terminate his contract. Warner Brothers made the difficult but commendable decision to put people ahead of profits.  So, too did Time, Inc., with the abrupt termination of CEO Jack Griffin after just six months on the job. Griffin's cost-cutting and organizational effectiveness measures may have had potential to contribute significantly to the company's bottom line, but at significant expense to its people.

Metrics and pure-dollar ROI are important, but human outcomes cannot always be fully quantified by statistical measures. Organizations will be well served to ensure that any leader evaluation system includes an effective consideration of the human side of leadership. You will get what you measure.