We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
When teams are singularly focused on hitting a number (e.g., engagement, account openings), they may rationalize unethical methods, as seen with Facebook's platform issues and Wells Fargo's fraudulent accounts. The relentless pursuit of a metric can justify evil outcomes.
Before committing to an outcome, teams should ask: "If we achieved this number via methods I'd be embarrassed to see in a news headline, is it a worthy goal?" This simple thought experiment acts as a powerful, practical guardrail against unethical tactics.
By ranking engineers on AI token consumption, Meta is experiencing Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Employees reportedly build bots to needlessly burn tokens for status, demonstrating how gamifying a proxy metric can backfire and disconnect from actual business impact.
Intensely focusing on a specific goal can narrow a team's cognitive field, functioning as "mental blinders." Like the "invisible gorilla" experiment, this causes them to miss peripheral information, including the ethical implications of their actions, because it's not part of the primary goal.
Just as cybersecurity teams use "red teams" to find system vulnerabilities, organizations should assign individuals a role to discover how key metrics can be manipulated. This exposes weaknesses in the goal-setting system before they are exploited unethically for personal or team gain.
A destructive blind spot for driven leaders is "goal-induced blindness," an obsession with measurable goals that obscures other crucial factors like ethics, health, and relationships. This can lead to personal burnout and corporate scandals like the Volkswagen emissions case.
When hitting a target is the only path to reward, truth becomes the first casualty. Individuals feel pressure to fabricate data, cherry-pick metrics, and hide negative findings to achieve their goals. The system begins to actively reward dishonesty and punish transparency.
The excuse that "it's the people, not the framework" is a dangerous platitude. The system doesn't need to hire evil people; it just needs good people operating within a system of bad incentives. Unchecked, outcome-driven goals can compel anyone to make poor ethical choices.
As Charlie Munger taught, incentive-caused bias is powerful because it causes people to rationalize actions they might otherwise find unethical. When compensation depends on a certain behavior, the human brain twists reality to justify that behavior, as seen in the Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal.
Setting rigid targets incentivizes employees to present favorable numbers, even subconsciously. This "performance theater" discourages them from investigating negative results, which are often the source of valuable learning. The muscle for detective work atrophies, and real problems remain hidden beneath good-looking metrics.
To make outcome goals safer, supplement each objective with explicit constraints or "red lines." For example, pair "Increase signups by 20%" with "without increasing new user support tickets by more than 5%." This builds ethical and operational guardrails directly into the goal itself.