Maybe there is some truth in it. But I also feel that you might get a better result if you let humans to figure out what is needed to be done to achieve a goal instead of telling them through a metric.
The feature that distinguishes a well designed metric is exactly that. Specific enough to ensure alignment with broader strategic objectives, general enough not to dictate exactly how.
I think the point of the article is summed up in the sentence:
"The key components of metric fixation are the belief that it is possible – and desirable – to replace professional judgment (acquired through personal experience and talent) with numerical indicators of comparative performance based upon standardised data (metrics)"
Basically, it is a problem of trust. You're trying to replace trust in people with a metric which, in theory, lets you not to have trust in them.
Personally, I think it is a foolish goal. You are effectively replacing the trust in people (which, admittedly, is vague) with trust in the metric (which connection to reality is vague). The vagueness has a reason - reality is complicated.
Why not just tell people what the "broader strategic objective" is, instead of trying to come up with a metric that is an exact (and so necessarily wrong) description of it?
Trust is the wrong word, its more about alignment. I do trust that employees can exercise their professional judgement. I don't expect that every employee can perfectly align themselves behind a strategic objective without guidance.
If my broader strategic objective is to cut costs by 15% allow more competitive pricing, the last thing I want is for every individual to define what that means to them and hope the math works out in the end.
"I do trust that employees can exercise their professional judgement. I don't expect that every employee can perfectly align themselves behind a strategic objective without guidance."
That's strange to me, because the former surely seems to be much more difficult than the latter.
Sure, say a company desires to broaden their customer base so they are less reliant on a small set of large customers. A goal could be "30% of net revenue should come from companies with less than $100M in revenue".
Its strategic, specific and measurable (we are at 5% and need to get to 30%) but it doesn't say how. Focus on a specific industry? Launch a new product? Restructure the sales org?
Maybe there is some truth in it. But I also feel that you might get a better result if you let humans to figure out what is needed to be done to achieve a goal instead of telling them through a metric.