It seems that the pendulum has swung way over when it comes to information and decision making. Data is king. Don’t try to make a statement without a pile of numbers to support it lest someone think you are just giving your opinion. The mantra: leaders must be objective in their decision making and actions.

But here’s the problem. Just because something is quantified it is not automatically objective. Run a Google search on global warming and you are certain to find plenty of objective evidence supporting both the proposition that it is occurring and not occurring at the same time.

So, what does a leader do? Should we abandon all forms of measurement because of potential flaws and biases? I don’t think so.

But we should stop automatically assuming that anything that is quantified is objective and anything that is not quantified is subjective. More importantly, we must remember that data is just a reflection of reality; one that we have invented. It is not reality in and of itself.

For example, one organization in which I worked moved to an “objective” performance measurement system. All goals had to be quantified. Each goal had a one to five scale which was determined solely based on a pre-defined metric.

While the numbers may appear objective and precise, most are made up. Is there really data that says a 10% increase in sales is 1) the right increase, 2) a reasonably attainable increase, or 3) worth the same as a 5% increase in customer satisfaction (which might also be worth a “5” on the evaluation). Or, was that 10% increase in sales someone’s wish in order to improve business. Wishes are subjective even when they are translated into numbers.

In this organization, a director was brought in to “clean up” a department. Within a year, he moved his department from the absolute bottom to average. He was innovative in his thinking, didn’t tolerate poor performance, and was committed to making his people either succeed or move out of the organization. In everybody’s eyes, he was a top performer.

Then came the performance ratings. He was rated a three out of five. Even though he significantly improved his customer satisfaction, it didn’t make it to the organization’s goal. The level that he reached was only worth a three. I even remember another director commenting, “But he seems like such a good performer.”

Was that objective? The goals were tied directly to customer satisfaction scores. Everyone was measured against it in the same way. There was no room for opinion to “distort” the facts. Yet, somehow, this top performer was objectively assessed as average.

The problem was that the objective numbers were arrived at in a subjective way.

The organization’s goal was an opinion. There was no hard evidence to suggest what the goal should have been. It was set by taking the prior year’s result and increasing it. The increase was based on an amount that “felt” right to the management team. More importantly, the determination that everyone in the organization should use the same target was equally subjective. No one considered the amount of effort required to move a department up from the bottom versus maintain an already well performing one.

Now perhaps this can be dismissed at just poor goal setting. It might be an extreme case. However, I don’t think it is far from reality. Look at the “objective” measures in your business. How many of them are based on facts and evidence versus opinions and desires?

I’m not suggesting that we do away with numbers and data. I am suggesting that we use them in context. Numbers and data are our invention to make sense of our reality. They are not that reality.