---
id: "contrarian-bloated-metrics"
type: "contrarian-insight"
source_timestamps: ["¶32", "¶33", "¶34", "¶35"]
tags: ["change-management", "leadership", "metrics"]
related: ["framework-consensus-metric-reduction"]
speakers: ["Indra Nooyi"]
challenges: "The conventional view that leaders should strictly limit KPIs from day one to ensure operational focus."
source_url: "https://hbr.org/2025/10/innovating-at-the-core-and-for-the-future"
source_title: "Innovating at the Core—and for the Future"
sources: ["futures"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-futures"
originDay: 2
articleStem: "hbr-cl-91-innovating-core-and-future"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/10/innovating-at-the-core-and-for-the-future"
sourceTitle: "Innovating at the Core—and for the Future"
---
# Embrace bloated metrics temporarily to build consensus

**Challenges:** the conventional view that leaders should strictly limit KPIs from day one to ensure operational focus.

Conventional management wisdom dictates starting a new initiative with a tight, focused set of KPIs (e.g., 5–7 metrics). Nooyi actively chose to launch [[concept-performance-with-purpose]] with **30 metrics**. She knew it was operationally inefficient, but doing so prevented mutiny from expert factions who wanted their specific metrics included. She allowed the organization to feel the pain of the bloat for two years until they organically agreed to reduce the list — thereby preserving the coalition. The mechanics are documented in [[framework-consensus-metric-reduction]].

**Enrichment.** Consistent with participatory change management (psychological ownership drives buy-in) and design-thinking's diverge-then-converge logic; KPI/OKR experts would counter that 30 metrics dilutes accountability and obscures priorities in complex global organizations.