The devil is in the measurement

Over the years, I have had several experiences that reveal how easily organisations widen the gap between strategy and results. For example, a client once developed an ambitious strategy focused on growth and innovation. Yet when we examined the key performance indicators for leaders, managers, and staff, most of them remained focused on business-as-usual activities. The strategy had changed, but the metrics had not. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. In strategy, the devil is in the measurement.

On another occasion, I attended a strategy training session where the facilitator confidently declared: “We cascade the strategy only to the departmental level and don’t worry about individuals.” The assumption seemed to be that once departments understood the strategy, alignment would somehow occur automatically.

I also remember a client who once remarked that everyone in the organisation had received high appraisal scores, yet the company could not pay bonuses because profits had declined. The irony was striking: if everyone performed so well, how did the organisation perform so poorly?

Another executive once complained that appraisal season in his company was always “full of tears”. Employees expected higher scores than their managers awarded. Yet if objectives, metrics, and evaluation rubrics are clearly defined and supported by evidence, there should be little difference between a self-appraisal and a manager’s assessment. Finally, in many commercial institutions, monthly performance reviews are highly data-driven – which is great! But these sessions often resemble courtroom proceedings. Managers are either praised for hitting their targets or criticised for missing them. What is often missing is a deeper conversation about improvement – diagnosing the root causes of performance gaps and innovating from both failures and successes.

These experiences illustrate a fundamental problem – organisations invest heavily in strategy, yet their measurement and accountability systems often fail to translate that strategy into daily behaviour. Research and practice suggest four disciplines that can help close this gap – measuring what matters; tracking performance to drive accountability; using evidence to appraise performance; and failing forward to drive innovation.

The first discipline is ensuring that organisations measure what truly matters for strategy. Research in Sloan Management Review by Christopher Ittner and David Larcker reinforces this point. They found that organisations frequently adopt performance metrics simply because they are easy to measure rather than because they reflect strategic priorities. When this happens, measurement systems can distort behaviour and encourage managers to optimise for the metric rather than the strategy itself.

The second discipline is using measurement to reinforce accountability. Metrics should not exist only in dashboards or annual reports; they must guide regular management conversations. When leaders consistently track progress against clearly defined objectives, they signal that strategic priorities are operational expectations rather than abstract aspirations. Accountability clarifies ownership, strengthens focus, and ensures that strategic initiatives receive sustained attention across the organisation.

The third discipline is grounding performance appraisal in clear evidence rather than subjective impressions. Scholars Angelo DeNisi and Robert Pritchard have written extensively about the dual purposes of performance appraisal. Their research distinguishes between evaluative uses, which inform administrative decisions such as rewards and promotions, and developmental uses, which focus on helping employees improve their performance. Both purposes are important, but organisations often overemphasise evaluation while neglecting development.

When objectives, metrics, and performance rubrics are clearly defined, appraisal discussions become less emotional and more constructive. Instead of debating opinions, managers and employees can examine evidence together. In such environments, the gap between self-assessment and managerial evaluation becomes smaller because both are anchored in shared data and clearly defined expectations.

The final discipline is using performance measurement as a tool for learning and innovation rather than simply for rewards and sanctions. This raises a fundamental question: what is the primary purpose of performance management? Is it to judge performance or to improve it?

Harvard Business School scholar Chris Argyris addressed this issue through his concept of double-loop learning. Argyris argued that organisations often focus only on correcting errors within existing rules—what he called ‘single-loop learning’. True improvement occurs when organisations also question the assumptions, processes, and systems that produced those results in the first place.

In this sense, performance data should not merely identify who missed the target. It should help leaders understand why the target was missed and what must change. Organisations that embrace this approach treat performance gaps as opportunities for learning. Instead of punishing every unsuccessful initiative, they analyse root causes, extract lessons, and refine their strategy. Innovation often emerges from this disciplined reflection on both failures and successes.

Taken together, these insights highlight the central role of measurement and accountability in closing the strategy-to-results gap.

Organisations that succeed in this regard typically do four things well. They measure what truly matters for strategy. They track performance consistently to reinforce accountability. They base appraisal discussions on clear evidence rather than subjective impressions. And they use performance data not only to judge outcomes but also to stimulate learning and innovation.

When measurement and accountability are aligned with strategic intent, organisations transform plans into performance. When they are not, strategy remains little more than a well-written document, and the gap between strategy and results quietly widens.

Omagbitse Barrow is the chief executive of Efiko Management Consulting. He supports organisations to translate their strategy to results.