But that’s the thing – if there’s little value in the textbook answer due to the self-defined nature of the role, then why the focus on measurability and objectivity? It means that you can only measure against yourself, plus I’d expect a bit of subjectivity, not just because it’s self-defined but because it’s political.
I can see where you’re going though re: measuring against your previous performance, so… considering that some meetings are worth missing, some aren’t, and your knowledge of what occurred in each – do you think you’ve done better this year than last?
It’s reminding me of the Open Council stuff – the data may be misleading or of little interest (or not), but if the comments/explanations that accompany it explain the context and provoke debate, then that’s worth doing.
I can see that any other data is impossible (or at least detrimental) to collect, but that’s a conundrum; you’re going to struggle to measure you’re performance if you don’t measure you’re performance. I think there’s something to be said for qualitative over quantitative in this case, i.e. insights rather than data as a provocation. If that’s the case, it doesn’t matter that it’s unmeasurable or subjective – in fact I think it’s meant to be.