In a recent video, Simon Sinek brilliantly captured a sentiment many leaders intuitively feel but often struggle to express clearly: our metrics aren’t necessarily wrong, they’re just incomplete. His analogy of choosing a life partner highlights this perfectly—physical attraction is important, but what about character, support during stress, and fundamental goodness?

The same incomplete thinking plagues our workplaces. Organizations obsess over performance metrics yet often overlook the critical human elements necessary for sustainable success.

The Systems Problem Behind Performance

Sinek’s concept of measuring momentum alongside accomplishments complements established frameworks like Balanced Scorecard and OKRs—the notion of tracking leading indicators isn’t new. However, his insight connects these directly to human behavior and organizational culture, areas often neglected in performance measurement.

Consider two contrasting performers: one who consistently achieves targets but leaves a trail of burnt-out team members and toxic interactions, versus another who fosters trust, stability, and steady growth, yet occasionally misses targets by slim margins.

The real question isn’t whether an employee has poor character but whether your organization has inadvertently created incentives that promote harmful behavior. When leaders demand results without clearly defining acceptable methods, they’re constructing systems that produce exactly the negative outcomes they claim to oppose.

The Navy SEALs exemplify balancing performance with trust. They prefer trustworthy individuals of moderate skill over toxic stars precisely because their system explicitly rewards this balance.

Defining “Good” Character

But how do we define “good”? Peterson and Seligman’s extensive research identifies 24 universally valued character strengths—traits like honesty, fairness, and perseverance, derived from 2,500+ years of philosophical and religious traditions. Yet “good” remains contextual. Your organization’s culture, leadership style, and personal values deeply influence what traits you prioritize.

As someone who values intrinsic motivation, I’ve found myself gravitating toward others who share that drive for continuous improvement. This creates incredibly effective teams when aligned, but I’ve also learned it can inadvertently set standards that not everyone can meet.

The difficulty isn’t identifying toxic performers—as Sinek humorously points out, every team immediately knows their “problem” individual. Rather, the challenge is building systems that explicitly reward good character alongside competence, acknowledging that “good” has no universally fixed definition.

Beyond Metrics: Building Sustainable Momentum

Purely optimizing for metrics often sacrifices the psychological safety, collaboration, and momentum necessary for long-term success. The best leaders ask not only, “Are they good at their job?” but more importantly, “Are they good people whose values align with our organizational ethos?”

The distinction matters enormously. Good people create environments where everyone can excel. They understand that the most meaningful metrics evaluate not just what you achieve, but how you achieve it—and who you become along the way.

Leaders, ask yourselves: Are your systems designed to reward character alongside competence? If not, what specific steps will you take to correct that imbalance today?