I agree with the premise that numbers aren't a replacement for actually knowing what's going on, I think there's a false equivalency the author has that if you're a manager wanting metrics on your people that it's because you don't know what's happening.
Metrics are like supporting arguments for a whatever narrative a manager is telling. I've used employee metrics to help support the case for promotion or supporting my case to HR for why they should be fired (I've never fired someone because of metrics). It reinforces observation. The time metrics get toxic is when a manager starts telling ICs their performance is their metrics. A whole host of bad things happen then.
And if you're telling me bad managers will suddenly become good managers if you take away their employee metrics, you've got a surprise coming.
Metrics are like supporting arguments for a whatever narrative a manager is telling. I've used employee metrics to help support the case for promotion or supporting my case to HR for why they should be fired (I've never fired someone because of metrics). It reinforces observation. The time metrics get toxic is when a manager starts telling ICs their performance is their metrics. A whole host of bad things happen then.
And if you're telling me bad managers will suddenly become good managers if you take away their employee metrics, you've got a surprise coming.