The Illusion of Objectivity in HR Metrics

While watching Suits the other day, I came across a scene that instantly connected with something we had discussed as part of our Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) class. Louis Litt asked Katrina Bennett to rejig the numbers so Brian Altman could stay at the firm. The decision had already been made: Brian should stay. The numbers were not guiding the decision; they were simply adjusted to justify it.

The Suits episode in question

This scene reminded me of Professor Chandwani’s point: interviewers and performance evaluators often believe they are being objective by using numbers, but in reality, those numbers are frequently constructed to support existing biases. We don’t arrive at decisions through data; we arrive at data through decisions. The prof. also mentioned that in interviews, most hiring choices are made in the first 30 seconds, with the remaining 29.5 minutes spent rationalizing that gut call.

Citibank’s Dilemma

The Citibank Performance Evaluation case that we had discussed in class illustrates this tension beautifully. James McGaran, a star branch manager in Los Angeles, delivered exceptional financial results (20% above target). By any traditional metric, he deserved an “above par” rating and the hefty bonus that came with it. But Citibank had just introduced a new performance scorecard, which included non-financial measures such as customer satisfaction. James consistently scored “below par” there.

This left management with a dilemma:

• Stick to the numbers and signal that Citibank was serious about customer service, even if it meant denying James the top rating.

• Or bend the interpretation, downplay customer satisfaction, and give James the “above par” evaluation he arguably deserved on overall performance.
  

Just like Louis in Suits, Citibank’s leadership faced the temptation of making the numbers fit the narrative.

Numbers Don’t Remove Subjectivity

From our class notes, a few truths stand out:

• Numbers do not convert subjectivity into objectivity. They can hide biases, but they cannot erase them.

• Even performance systems designed to be fair (like Citibank’s balanced scorecard) are only as strong as the people implementing them.

• Interviews and evaluations often work backward: people decide first, then justify with data.

The Real Purpose of PMS

So why do organizations invest in performance management systems (PMS) at all?

As Prof. Chandwani emphasized, they serve three key purposes:

1. Reward and Punishment: linking pay and progression to performance.

2. Gap Development: identifying where individuals and teams need support.

3. Influencing Behavior: the most important function, shaping how employees act to align with strategy.
   

Citibank’s scorecard was a classic attempt at the third, nudging managers to focus not just on financials but also on service quality, people development, and control.

Lessons Learned?

The lesson here is clear: numbers can support good management, but they don’t automatically make it objective. Whether in a fictional New York law firm (Suits) or a California bank branch (Citibank), the danger is the same: using numbers as camouflage for decisions already made.

The challenge for leaders and HR systems is not to pretend that numbers remove bias, but to design processes that acknowledge subjectivity, make it transparent, and keep it in check.