The Scorecard Problem.
Every scorecard is a discipleship document. The question is not whether yours is forming your team. The question is what is it forming them into.
If you’ve been reading along in this series, you’ll recognize where we are. If not, here’s the short version. The first article named a borrowed word that has been quietly reshaping the Church — flourishing. The second piece traced how a misaligned aim slowly drifts an organization away from its mission. This one is about the single most powerful instrument of either drift or recovery you have at your disposal: the scorecard. By scorecard, I mean the running set of numbers and signals an organization uses to tell itself how it’s doing — whether that shows up as a polished dashboard, a board-meeting report, or a back-of-the-envelope list a senior pastor jots down each Monday.
The scorecard is also what leaders are most likely to underestimate. Strategy gets the boardroom and the executive team. Structure gets the consultants and the org-chart redesigns. But the scorecard? In most organizations it receives a fancy UI or perhaps just a simple spreadsheet, a monthly or quarterly review, and very little serious theological or strategic attention. That is a mistake of historic proportions.
I grew up in an incredible Fortune 500 company whose CEO told every young leader: “What gets measured gets attended to and what gets attended to gets done.” That line is usually attributed to Peter Drucker, though he probably never said it. But few leaders sit with the next part long enough. What gets measured gets managed is true, but only half the truth. The British economist Charles Goodhart, writing in the 1970s, named the other half more sharply: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Both describe the same gravitational pull. And both stop short of a third truth, arguably more dangerous than either: what gets measured long enough eventually gets worshipped. You’ve heard “you are what you eat.” The same holds for organizations. What you count, you gradually become. The dashboard — the working face of the scorecard, the part your team sees every week — teaches the team what to chase, what to celebrate, and over time, what or who to be. In the truest sense, it is a discipleship document.
So the question for any serious leader is straightforward. What is the scorecard forming your team into?
Where most scorecards actually come from
Most organizational scorecards are not designed. They are inherited.
They get borrowed from a consulting firm whose last client was a SaaS company. Or they arrive with an executive who joined two years ago and brought their previous company’s KPI deck in a back pocket. Sometimes a board chair imports them from the other three boards she sits on. A funder’s reporting template gets adopted and quietly becomes the operating system. The marketplace has spent decades polishing its scorecards. The mission, by contrast, has rarely been forced to articulate what it actually counts.
This is not a moral failing. It is the natural physics of organizational life and culture. A scorecard, like any tool, follows the path of least resistance. When the moment comes (and it always does), when the leader needs a scorecard for the all-hands meeting on Monday morning, the marketplace’s scorecard is the one within reach. It gets borrowed. Then institutionalized. Then it becomes the organization.
The Church, in my experience, is the worst offender. Not for the reason most critics name. It is not that ministries are using metrics. They are. The problem is that they are using the wrong metrics, borrowed from corporate America somewhere around 1995, with a few spiritual labels applied on top to make them feel native. Discipleship pipeline. Member engagement funnel. First-time guest conversion rate. Or in a parachurch ministry: donor acquisition cost. Cost per leader trained. Year-over-year growth in chapters served. These are not theologically considered. They are the marketing analytics of a 1990s software company with the words swapped out. Whatever the dashboard is teaching your ministry to be, there’s a real risk that it has nothing to do with the actual mission and vision of the organization.
The three properties of a faithful scorecard
A scorecard worthy of the mission has three properties. They are easy to name and difficult to build, which is why they are so rare.
It measures what the mission actually requires, even when those things are hard to count.
Most scorecards measure what is easy to count and then quietly redefine the mission to match. A faithful scorecard does the opposite. It starts from what the mission actually requires, then goes looking for ways to track those things even when they resist a neat number — through proxy measures, qualitative reviews, narrative reporting, the kind of longitudinal observation that takes years to mean anything. Sanctification is hard to count. So is character formation. So is the depth of a marriage saved by a church’s counseling ministry. None of that gets to be ignored just because it doesn’t fit a cell.
It protects what the mission cannot afford to lose.
A faithful scorecard carries a small number of guardrail measures. Their only job is to flash red the moment the organization is succeeding at the wrong things. Attendance up but depth down? The scorecard should know. Revenue climbing while the staff burns out? The scorecard should know. Margins expanding while customer trust slowly erodes? The scorecard should know. Guardrails are not nice-to-haves. They are the difference between a scorecard that serves the mission and one that is slowly destroying it.
It refuses what looks like growth but isn’t.
Vanity metrics are the comfort food of organizational life. They taste like progress and feed nothing. Followers, impressions, page views. Capacity numbers that quietly hide who’s actually showing up. Headcount that says nothing about effectiveness. Revenue with no margin. Donor counts with no retention behind them. A faithful scorecard is brutal about this. It refuses to count what looks like motion but isn’t actually moving you anywhere (except maybe backwards). It would rather report a smaller, harder-won number than a larger hollow one. This is the property leaders find hardest to hold, because vanity metrics are how you make a board meeting or quarterly earnings report comfortable.
Every scorecard is a discipleship document. It teaches your team what to become.
What each kind of organization actually ought to count
The properties above are universal. The application is sectoral. Below, in compressed form, is what I have found to be true after thirty years across very different kinds of institutions.
For the Church
A church should count fewer things than it currently does, and the things it counts should hurt to count. Faithfulness over time. The depth of disciples produced, not the headcount of attendees gathered. The witness of members in their workplaces, not the volume of programming on the church campus. Marriages held together. Children formed in faith. The number of people sent into vocations of ministry, not the number who stayed to fill seats. These are uncomfortable to measure. They are also the only measures that survive a generational handoff.
For the Nonprofit / Mission Organization
A nonprofit should count outcomes, not outputs. Know the difference. We trained 1,200 leaders this year is an output. Of the leaders we trained five years ago, this is the proportion still in faithful service in the field, and this is the measurable change in the communities they serve is an outcome. Outputs are easy. Outcomes are slow, expensive, and can be pretty humbling. A nonprofit that refuses to count outcomes is, often without knowing it, a fundraising operation with a program attached.
For the Business
A business should count what the founder swore the company would never become. If the founder built it on craftsmanship, the scorecard had better measure quality and not just margin. If she built it on customer trust, then retention and net promoter belong on the scorecard alongside whatever acquisition number the sales team is chasing this quarter. If the founding bet was a culture of excellence, then the metric that matters most is the rate at which excellent people choose to stay — not the rate at which warm bodies get added. The most useful business scorecard is the one whose first metric would have made the founder proud. Now here’s the thing — of course a business or nonprofit can reinvent itself; I’m not suggesting that changing the mission and vision aren’t possible. The point is that it should be intentional and not the inadvertent result of a bad scorecard.
The meta-point, across all three: the most important thing every scorecard must measure is the integrity between what the organization counts and why the organization says it exists. That gap, more than any other single number, predicts whether the organization will still be the organization it was built to be ten years from now.
The most important question a leader asks each January
Most leaders, in the first week of January (or whenever you do your planning), sit with their team and ask the version of the question they have been trained to ask: What is our number for this year? Reasonable question. Wrong first question.
The right first question is older, harder, and considerably more revealing. It is this: Is our scorecard forming us into the kind of organization we said we wanted to build?
If the answer is yes, set the number with confidence. If the answer is no, set the number anyway, because budgets must be made and someone has to lead. But understand what you’ve just done. You announced a target that will continue to form your team into something other than what you said you were trying to build. That is drift, by design. It will compound across the year.
The leaders I respect most are the ones who hold that question with the seriousness it deserves. They redesign the scorecard and think hard about the “why” before they set the target. In my experience, this is rarer than it should be. And it’s the single discipline that most consistently separates organizations that survive their second decade from those that don’t.
Show me, O Lord, my life’s end and the number of my days; let me know how fleeting is my life. Psalm 39:4
Even the psalmist asks to be measured by the right thing. The leader who has not asked God what to count has, by default, accepted the marketplace’s answer.
Five questions to audit your scorecard before the next planning cycle.
- If your scorecard were the only thing left of your organization, what kind of organization would a stranger reconstruct from it? Is that the organization you set out to build?
- Which of your current metrics, if hit perfectly, would actually move your mission forward — and which would simply make the dashboard look better? Honesty here is uncommon. Honesty here is everything.
- What is one thing your mission absolutely cannot afford to lose, and where does it appear on your scorecard? If it doesn’t appear, the scorecard is unlikely to protect it.
- What metric is your team quietly gaming? Every scorecard is being gamed somewhere. The leader who knows where, is the leader who can fix it.
- If you removed the three loudest numbers on your scorecard, would your team still know what excellence looked like? If not, those numbers are no longer measuring excellence. They are defining it. That is the difference between a healthy scorecard and a controlling one.
The recovery
If the scorecard is going to inevitably shape your second decade, then whatever you measure now, your team will spend the next ten years becoming. That is not a metaphor. That is a description of how organizations actually work. There is no exemption for ministry or for sincerity of intent. The dashboard does not care what you meant. It forms what it forms.
The good news is straightforward. Of all the instruments a leader holds, the scorecard is the most malleable. Strategy is heavy to change. Structure is heavier. Culture is the heaviest of them all and usually takes multiple years. But a scorecard can be redesigned inside a single planning cycle. Once you see it clearly, you can move it. That’s the leverage. That’s why this work is worth doing now, before the next set of targets get locked in.
So my challenge to you is to choose, with seriousness and intentionality. Not convenience. And definitely not tradition. Choose with the awareness that what you count is what you will, over time, become. And know this: the scorecard is one of the most theologically loaded instruments in the modern organization. The leader who treats it as a spreadsheet exercise is, without meaning to, letting a spreadsheet disciple the team.
There is better work to do.
— Brandon Harvath
References
- Goodhart, Charles A. E. “Problems of Monetary Management: The U.K. Experience.” In Papers in Monetary Economics, vol. 1, 91–121. Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia, 1975.
The Flourishing Series
- The Flourishing Trap — the diagnosis
- The Quiet Drift — the anatomy
- The Scorecard Problem — the recovery
- Managing Beyond the Scorecard — the posture
If you are about to set next year’s targets…
Before the strategic planning cycle begins, the most leveraged conversation you can have is about your scorecard, not your goals. I build scorecard architectures for churches, ministries, nonprofits, and businesses that want what they measure to match what they actually believe in. Quiet, rigorous, fast.
Schedule an intro call