Competence Drives Corruption

Corruption is a term used liberally to describe the dishonest or unethical behavior of individuals, groups, corporations, and governments operating within hierarchical systems. Often, we attribute corruption to the darker aspects of human nature or the failure of systems to establish proper checks and balances. Disparities are easily attributed to individuals who either play the system unfairly, or even worse, to those who make the rules themselves. This leads to a lot of finger pointing and learned helplessness by those who have no choice but to play by the rules. However, I believe that the root of corruption lies not in these factors, but in the very concept of competence and, more specifically, the measures we use to assess it. In the 1970s, British economist Charles Goodhart articulated a profound observation: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” This principle, now known as Goodhart’s Law, encapsulates the paradoxical nature of human systems. When a quantifiable metric intended to represent success becomes the focal point, people inevitably manipulate the system to achieve that metric, often at the expense of the system's integrity. Goodhart’s Law is more than an economic insight; it reveals a fundamental truth about human nature that gives rise to corruption—a force intrinsic to humanity and impossible to eradicate.

For corruption to exist within a system, there must first be measures in place to assess competence. Without these measures, there would be no means to cheat the system or achieve undeserved results. These measures, whether they are grades in education or profits in business, provide tangible benchmarks for progress and success. However, these benchmarks are merely proxies or representations that do nothing to determine the authenticity of one’s success. While the measure of competence is a clear marker of one’s performance within the system that can be compared to the performance of others in order to make a value judgement, there is no way of telling whether or not that measure of competence was obtained virtuously.  These explicit measures often fail to capture the deeper, implicit values that systems are meant to uphold—learning in education or prosperity in business, for instance.

Consider education. Grades serve as the system's explicit measure of competence, quantifying a student’s performance and progression. Yet, the true value of education—understanding, critical thinking, and the ability to apply knowledge meaningfully—is far more difficult to quantify. There is virtually no way to gauge how well someone understands calculus simply from looking at their marks. Even if we look at how they showed their work, there is no way of telling if their thought process was authentic, rote memorized or plagiarized. When grades become the primary target, students often resort to dishonest or superficial strategies to achieve them. They may cheat on tests or memorize material without engaging deeply with it. While this may lead to higher grades, it undermines the implicit value of learning. This is often the case with high achieving students who claim they forgot everything they learned in a past unit once they have written the test. While they were successful in rote memorization, which helped them obtain a high mark, their inability to absorb key concepts devalues their knowledge of the course material and the purpose of the course as a whole. There is no appreciation for gestalt, which is a word that describes something that is more than the sum of its parts. Focusing on the explicit will always fail to see the gestalt.  A student who "succeeds" in medical school through rote memorization, for example, risks becoming a doctor without the holistic understanding necessary to practice medicine effectively.

Similarly, in the world of business, the explicit measure is profit. While profit reflects competence in navigating markets, the implicit value businesses are meant to provide—prosperity for their stakeholders and communities—is harder to measure. Companies might cut corners by violating safety regulations or evading taxes to maximize earnings. While this behavior elevates them in the hierarchy of competence, it devalues the broader system by harming the community’s prosperity. For instance, neglecting environmental safety standards to reduce costs might yield short-term profits but lead to long-term damage to public health and the environment.

The divide between explicit and implicit measures creates fertile ground for corruption. Explicit measures, being tangible and quantifiable, are visible and actionable targets. Implicit measures, however, remain abstract and difficult to directly pursue. When explicit measures dominate the focus, individuals and organizations are incentivized to exploit the system to achieve these visible markers of success, even if it means neglecting or undermining the implicit values the system was designed to promote.

This phenomenon is evident in education systems where students from affluent families exploit "credit mills"—private institutions that award high grades for a fee. Here, the explicit measure of money is used to inflate the explicit measure of grades, bypassing the implicit value of genuine learning. Such practices not only devalue individual achievements but also erode the credibility of the education system as a whole. Even worse, it shows how measures of competence in one system can be used to bolster the level of corruption in another. The corruption caused by measures of competence is malignant. 

Goodhart’s Law illuminates why corruption seems to be an unavoidable feature of hierarchical systems. By focusing on explicit measures of competence, systems inadvertently create opportunities for manipulation and dishonesty. This does not mean explicit measures are unnecessary. On the contrary, they are indispensable for systems to function, providing tangible benchmarks that give structure and accountability. While it would be ideal if the integrity of a system could be evaluated by implicit means only, this is unfortunately not realistic. There will always be a need to explicitly communicate how well we are doing and we will always need something measurable that we can reach for. However, these measures must be approached with caution and an awareness of their limitations. Psychiatrist and philosopher Dr. Iain McGilchrist offers valuable insight into this dilemma in his book The Master and His Emissary. McGilchrist explores the contrasting roles of the brain's hemispheres, noting that the left hemisphere’s narrow, goal-driven focus often blinds us to the broader, value-oriented perspective of the right hemisphere. Explicit measures, tied to left-hemisphere thinking, may drive systems toward short-term objectives while ignoring the holistic, value-based goals that require a more open and reflective approach.

For example, a business overly fixated on quarterly profits may neglect long-term innovation or employee well-being—factors that contribute to lasting prosperity. Similarly, a student chasing grades might miss out on the transformative experience of truly understanding a subject.

While we cannot eliminate corruption or the measures that enable it, we can mitigate its effects by being mindful of the balance between explicit and implicit values. This requires a shift in focus from rigidly pursuing targets to engaging with systems in meaningful and value-driven ways. Ancient wisdom, such as the Taoist concept of wu wei or "effortless action," echoes this idea. It suggests that the best outcomes arise not from forced effort or narrow focus, but from a harmonious engagement with the world.

By holding ourselves accountable to the implicit values of our systems, we can counteract the corrupting influence of misplaced priorities. This means businesses must prioritize community prosperity alongside profits, and educational institutions must emphasize genuine learning over test scores. It also calls for individuals to resist the temptation to game the system and instead immerse themselves authentically in their pursuits.

The origins of corruption lie in the very structures we create to measure and define competence. Goodhart’s Law reveals the inevitable pitfalls of targeting explicit measures, showing how they can lead to dishonest behavior and undermine the implicit values that sustain systems. Yet, corruption is not a fate we must resign ourselves to. By recognizing the limits of explicit measures and re-centering our systems on their true purposes, we can strive to uphold their integrity. In doing so, we acknowledge the complexities of human nature and the need for balance between tangible goals and the deeper values that give life its richness.