I really think, companies should actively inform their team leaders that metrics and scores are not an adequate measure for performance. E.g., a person may have great scores, but is in actuality just micro-managing their incompetence at the cost of everyone else's performance. Metrics may indicate a certain behavior, or they may hint at the opposite, or they may be even somewhat random, as they record just a certain slice of activity, which may or may not be representative and may be of more or less significance to an individual's total work process. Performance is still best judged by performance, that is, output and resource management and, maybe, how much and what kind of irritation a person causes in the given organisation. (Mind that there may be something like positive irritation, as well.) In the light of this, these questionable products are actually quack. (Sorry to have to say so.)
If they hired team managers that use those metrics, do you think that their peers would know this is a bad practice? It seems like this problem widespread and nobody wants to say "we don't need this data", so yes this should come from the top. However, I fear that if a company starts to suffer, the shareholders would want to know answers and data. Would any exec have dared to say "sorry we don't have any metrics about individual employee performance"?
