A Summary and Critical Analysis: “The 7 Deadly Sins of Performance
Measurement and How to Avoid Them”
Doris Willis
Ottawa University May7, 2016
Productions-Operations Management – OAD 30013

Review: Hammer, M. (2007). “THE 7 DEADLY Sins OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT [and How to Avoid Them],” MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(3), 19-28. Business managers are responsible designing and using metrics to track and improve operating performance to ensure customers are satisfied, productivity increases, and to boost sales. Operational performance measurement is one of the toughest problems facing many organizations nowadays. “The 7 Deadly Sins of Performance Measurement and How to Avoid Them” by Michael Hammer seeks to answer why companies fall target to recurring mistakes when using metrics. Ultimately, this article documents and evaluates seven prevalent mistakes exploited and how each improbity circumvents performance management and how to elude them.
Summary
The article centers on interviews with various executives. The consensus is managers’ do not use metrics effectively; they measure either too much or too little or the wrong things. Numerous companies implement metrics without giving any thought to the consequences of these metrics. He notes many of the operational metrics used by businesses make little or no sense. Hammer spells out the general dissatisfaction managers’ feel with metrics. Hammer outlines two routes that will ensure useful performance measurements for staying on track. First, put emphasis on end-to-end business processes and all cross-organizational activity structures that create customer value. Second, provide the right metrics to use by knowing what is measurable. In keeping these essential rules, one can avoid these seven deadly mistakes: Vanity, Provincialism, Narcissism, Laziness, Pettiness, Inanity, and Frivolity. Operational performance measurement is critical for any organization to deliver ongoing customer satisfaction.
Critical Analysis Hammer effectively uses each deadly sin to illustrate his basic argument. First, he attributes the sin of’ ‘vanity’ to be a major mistake; pointing out no one wants a metric that they cannot score 95 on, suggesting bonuses and other rewards are linked to performance measures (2007, p. 20). Secondly, provincialism lets organizational concerns dictate performance metrics (2007, p. 21). Next, there is narcissism where the measuring is from one’s point of view (2007, p 22). Then there is laziness, which exists when managers refuse to give adequate thought or effort to the metric used (2007, p. 22). Each of these ‘sins’ has lost its course. They have lost sight of the broader and more meaningful metrics that could have been appropriate. Ensuing is inanity that proposes companies will implement metrics without giving any thought to the consequences of these metrics on human behavior or operation performance as this initiates chaos and higher cost (2007, p. 22). Lastly, frivolity manifests itself by arguing about metrics or finding excuses for poor performances instead of them taking the issue seriously and tracking the root causes (2007, p. 23). Rather, managers’ guilty of this sin look for ways to pass the blame than to make themselves answerable and determine what metrics are necessary for improving performance (2007, p. 23). It is likely companies engaging in wrongdoings will discover they are incapable of using the metrics to drive improvements in operating performance. Having the right metrics is vital. The designer of metrics must be cognizant of the extent of influence using a single metric to enable improvement. Making use of the right metric and being committed to meaningful metrics is a powerful boost for production operation management. Hammer’s article is interesting and seeks to challenge designers of metrics as he manages to draw on numerous real life accounts to illustrate his points.
Importance of Metrics The deadly sins of operational measurement are indicators to deeper cultural weaknesses and are not just measure glitches. It is not enough for senior managers to talk about performance improvements and how to design meaningful metrics intelligently. They must deal with the difficult issues for providing feedback to understand the cause-and-effect links between the primary measures of performances (Collier & Evans, 2015, p. 59 – 66). Hammer (2007) concurs with Collier and Evans useful performance measures are measurable, and the result of such an effort is much more than better metrics; it is a better company (2015, p. 59; pp. 19-28 ). Conclusion In conclusion, this article effectively accomplished its original goal to direct its readers’ attention to the seven erroneousness behaviors that cause companies to drift away from being profitable and useful in managing changes using metrics. Poorly designed metrics cannot repair on their own; however, designers of metrics must eliminate silos processes and base performance management on the customer's view. Focusing on just one metric is dangerous as business is complex and fast-paced. There is no denying the right metrics. Managers cannot manage without measuring, and only what is measured – is done.

References
Collier, D. A., & Evans, J. R. (2015). OM 5 (5th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hammer, M. (2007). The 7 deadly sins of performance measurement [and how to avoid them]. (cover story). MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(3), 19-28.