TL;DR: A USPS clerk tapping the green smiley face on a customer feedback screen is a small but telling example of gaming the system. When performance metrics are vague, fear-based, or tied to rewards and punishment, people naturally optimize for the score instead of the purpose. The problem isn't the employee–it's bad metrics and system design. Leaders must create measurement systems that support learning and improvement, not shortcuts that distort the data.
When the System Encourages a Smile (Even if You Didn't Choose It)
I recently dropped off a pre-labeled return package at my local USPS branch.
To me, it wasn't much of a transaction. I handed over the package, the clerk scanned it, and asked if I wanted a receipt. Pretty routine.
What happened next caught my attention.
Before I could respond–or even fully register the question–the clerk reached forward and tapped the green smiley face on the touchscreen customer feedback device.
He rated the interaction on my behalf.
To be clear, I was having a good experience. I probably would have tapped the green face myself. But I didn't get the chance. And that got me thinking–not about the clerk's behavior, but about the system around him.
Why Gaming the System Is a Predictable Response to Bad Metrics
I don't blame the clerk. He didn't design the system.
But someone did.
And that system likely includes:
- A measurement tool (the feedback terminal) that simplifies experience into a single button tap.
- A performance target that encourages more green faces, fewer red ones.
- A management approach that may judge, reward, or penalize employees based on something as ambiguous as those smiley face metrics.
If that's true, then what happens when:
- A customer doesn't tap anything? Is that silence interpreted as dissatisfaction?
- A red face appears during a rush caused by understaffing or delayed shipments?
- A clerk is friendly and helpful, but still gets marked down because of issues upstream?
These questions matter. Because when we don't design systems thoughtfully, we risk holding people accountable for things they can't control.
A Lean and Deming Perspective on Metrics and Behavior
And when that happens, people often adapt to survive the system rather than improve it. In this case, that might mean tapping the green face themselves–just in case.
From a Lean perspective (informed by the Deming Philosophy), we're reminded that:
- Most performance is a function of the system, not individual effort.
- People will naturally optimize to meet incentives–especially when the stakes feel personal.
- Metrics without context can mislead, not inform.
Why This Is a System Failure, Not an Employee Failure
That clerk didn't fail. The system did. As Deming said, senior management is most responsible for the system.
Instead of asking “Why did he do that?”–we might ask:
What about the system made that behavior seem like the best choice?
And how often are we unintentionally encouraging similar behaviors in our own organizations?
Let's design systems that help people succeed–without asking them to game the data just to protect themselves.
Related Lessons on Gaming the System and Bad Metrics
Please scroll down (or click) to post a comment. Connect with me on LinkedIn.
If you’re working to build a culture where people feel safe to speak up, solve problems, and improve every day, I’d be glad to help. Let’s talk about how to strengthen Psychological Safety and Continuous Improvement in your organization.
