A common practice in managerial and public service contexts is to quantity, calculate, and use numbers and metrics which provide a presumption of scientificity, a sense of measurability, objectivity, reliability, and precision upon which smarter decisions can be made. Besides providing a theoretical background, we analyze counter-productive effects of over-relying on numbers and metrics, notably in public administration. We discuss the following traps: preferring what is measurable over what is important, replacing the strategy by a measure and dehumanizing the decision making. We suggest some practical ways to facilitate a more parsimonious, smarter, and adequate use of numbers.
AnyonJ. (1925). Recollections of the early days of American accountancy. Reprint Zeff (Original work published 1988)
2.
BallR. (2006). International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): Pros and cons for investors. Accounting and Business Research, 36, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2006.9730040
3.
BattaglioR. P.Jr.BelardinelliP.BelléN.CantarelliP. (2019). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: A synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304–320.
4.
BeckerG. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago Press.
5.
BentleyJ. W. (2019). Decreasing operational distortion and surrogation through narrative reporting. The Accounting Review, 94(3), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52277
6.
BhanotS. P.LinosE. (2020). Behavioral public administration: Past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 80, 168–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13129
7.
ChoiW.HechtG.TaylerW. B. (2012). Strategy selection, surrogation, and strategic performance measurement systems. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(1), 105–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2012.00465.x
8.
ChristoffK. (2014). Dehumanization in organizational settings: Some scientific and ethical considerations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00748
9.
ConbereJ.SavallH.HeorhiadiA. (2016). Decoding the socio-economic approach to management: Results of the second SEAM conference in the United States. Information Age.
10.
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
11.
EspelandW. N.SauderM. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 133(1), 1–40.
GagnéM.ForestJ.GilbertM. H.AubéC.MorinE.MalorniA. (2010). The motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355698
14.
GalochkinI.GrolleauG.SutanA. (2012). Escaping the zero-sum game of positional races. Kyklos, 65(4), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12002
15.
GeorgeB. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. Jossey Bass.
GrantA. M. (2008a). Employees without a cause: The motivational effects of prosocial impact in public service. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490801887905
19.
GrantA. M. (2008b). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108
20.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.JilkeS.OlsenA. L.TummersL. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56.
21.
HarrisM.TaylerB. (2019, September-October). Don’t let metrics undermine your business. Harvard Business Review, 63–69.
22.
HoodC. (2006). Gaming in target world: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 515–520. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3843937
23.
HoodC. (2007). Public service management by numbers: Why does it vary? Where has it come from? What are the gaps and the puzzles?Public Money & Management, 27(2), 95–102.
24.
HoodC. (2012). Public management by numbers as a performance-enhancing drug: Two hypotheses. Public Administration Review, 72(Suppl. 1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02634.x
25.
HorneA. (1962). The price of glory: Verdun 1916. Penguin Books UK.
26.
HseeC. K.ZhangJ.LuZ. Y.XuF. (2013). Unit asking: A method to boost donations and beyond. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1801–1808. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613482947
27.
HummelR. P. (2006). The triumph of numbers. Knowledges and the mismeasure of management. Administration and Society, 38(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399705284202
28.
JamesO.MoynihanD. P.OlsenA. L.Van RyzinG. G. (2020). Behavioral public performance: How people make sense of government metrics [Series: Elements in Public and Nonprofit Administration]. Cambridge University Press.
29.
KahnemanD. (2003). Perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720101037/0003066X589697.
30.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
KnightF. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin.
33.
KrayL. J.GalinskyA. D. (2003). The debiasing effect of counterfactual mind-sets: Increasing the search for disconfirmatory information in group decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), 69–81.
34.
LuanS.RebJ.GigerenzerG. (2019). Ecological rationality: Fast-and-frugal heuristics for managerial decision making under uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1735–1759. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0172
35.
LuthansF.AvolioB. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In CameronK. S.DuttonJ. E.QuinnR. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241–261). Barrett-Koehler.
36.
McKenzieR. B.LeeD. R. (2006). Microeconomics for MBAs: The economic way of thinking for managers. Cambridge.
37.
MullerJ. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press.
38.
NordgrenL. F.McDonnellM.-H. M. (2011). The scope-severity paradox: Why doing more harm is judged to be less harmful. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610382308
39.
OlsenA. L. (2015). The numerical psychology of performance information: Implications for citizens, managers, and policymakers. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 100–115.
40.
OlsenA. L. (2017). Human interest or hard numbers? Experiments on citizens’ selection, exposure, and recall of performance information. Public Administration Review, 77(3), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12638
41.
OrdóñezL.SchweitzerM.GalinskyA.BazermanM. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.37007999
42.
ParmenterD. (2010). Key performance indicators: Developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs. John Wiley.
43.
RaffournierB. (2007). Les oppositions françaises à l’adoption des IFRS: Examen critique et tentative d’explication. Comptabilité-Contrôle-Audit, 3(3), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.3917/cca.133.0021
44.
RhoadsS. E. (1985). The economist’s view of the world. Cambridge University Press.
ScottM. L.NowlisS. M. (2013). The effect of goal specificity on goal reengagement. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 444–459. https://doi.org/10.1086/670766
SlovicP. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95.
49.
SmithT. (1992). Accounting for growth. Random House.
50.
SpekléR. F.VerbeetenF. H. (2014). The use of performance measurement systems in the public sector: Effects on performance. Management Accounting Research, 25(2), 131–146.
51.
VollmerH. (2007). How to do more with numbers: Elementary stakes, framing, keying, and the three-dimensional character of numerical signs. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(6), 577–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.10.001
52.
WalkerR. M.LeeM. J.JamesO.HoS. M. (2018). Analyzing the complexity of performance information use: Experiments with stakeholders to disaggregate dimensions of performance, data sources, and data types. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 852–863.
YamK. C.ReynoldsS. J. (2016). The effects of victim anonymity on unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 136, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2367-5
