Introduction
Goodhart’s Law is the principle that
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
Something that was originally meant as a reference point for understanding a situation loses its original function the moment it is transformed into something that must be achieved.
For example, consider tracking working hours in order to understand whether you are able to concentrate. Over time, this can quietly turn into a goal of “I must work for X hours.”
Originally, working hours are nothing more than reference information for understanding states such as:
- How well you were able to concentrate today
- Whether fatigue is accumulating
However, once time itself becomes the goal, different behaviors start to be selected: continuing to sit at the desk even without focus, or filling time with low-substance work just to reach the number.
The numerical value of working hours may still remain, but it no longer functions as an indicator of concentration or a healthy pace.
The Moment an Indicator Turns into a Goal
What matters here is not that there is something wrong with “working hours” themselves. What is happening is a structural shift: something that was used as an indicator has begun to be treated as a goal.
Goodhart’s Law does not claim that placing numbers or measuring things is inherently bad. Rather, the problem arises at the moment when something placed in order to measure quietly turns into a condition that must be met.
Once it becomes a “goal,” people stop trying to improve the underlying state and instead begin optimizing their behavior to satisfy the number being evaluated.
As a result, the indicator remains, but the original state it was meant to measure becomes harder to see.
This structure appears not only in workplace management or organizational evaluation systems, but also in much smaller, more personal decision-making processes.
Why “If I Can, I’d Like to Do It” Turns into “I Have to Do It”
The phrase “if I can, I’d like to do it” is not originally a goal for action. It is a very light reference point for judgment—something used to check whether there is spare capacity, whether it seems feasible in the current state, or whether interest and motivation are present.
However, the moment you write it into a to-do list, put it on a schedule, or make it something to review later, its role quietly changes. “If I can, I’d like to do it” shifts from being an indicator for measuring the situation into a goal that is evaluated by whether it was achieved or not.
As a result, not doing it is treated as “not achieved,” which is then interpreted as failure, and that failure leads to a drop in self-evaluation. What should have been nothing more than a judgment of “I chose not to this time” turns into “I couldn’t do it” or “I was lazy.”
This is not a problem of willpower. Just like the example of working hours, it is a structural problem caused by treating something that was meant to be an indicator as a goal. Goodhart’s Law shows that the moment this kind of substitution occurs, behavior itself begins to distort.
The transformation of “if I can, I’d like to do it” into “I have to do it” is simply the personal version of this phenomenon.
Why It Feels Like a “Failure”
What complicates things is the fact that “if I can, I’d like to do it” was never an action you had decided to take in the first place. And yet, from the moment it is treated as a goal, it is retroactively reinterpreted as if it were something you had decided to do.
As a result, the reason for not doing it shifts from a judgment such as “I chose not to this time” or “I prioritized something else,” to a perceived problem of ability or willpower—“I couldn’t do it,” or “I couldn’t keep it up.”
What is happening here is not a failure of the action itself. It is a cognitive shift in which the outcome of a judgment is replaced with a judgment about one’s character or self-worth.
In terms of Goodhart’s Law, an indicator that was originally placed to measure a state turns, at the moment it is not achieved, into a device that produces a sense of failure. That is why, even though you simply did not do it, a lingering feeling of failure remains.
The Problem Is Not Willpower, but Placement
As we have seen, the reason “if I can, I’d like to do it” becomes painful is not a lack of willpower or self-control. It is a structural issue of where it is placed and how it is treated.
The moment something that originally functioned as an indicator is put into the frameworks of to-do lists, schedules, or reviews, goal-ification almost automatically occurs. As a result, actions that were once voluntary become obligations, and obligations are far more likely to generate experiences of failure.
In other words, “things you’d like to do if you can” are not a problem of execution ability, but a problem of management design and placement.
Conclusion
As we have seen, the phenomenon in which “if I can, I’d like to do it” turns into “I have to do it” can be explained not by issues of willpower or personality, but by a structural substitution between indicators and goals.
I wrote this article because I repeatedly noticed that items I had originally placed low on my task list as “things I’d like to do if I can” gradually began to bind me as “things I must do,” without my realizing it.
The specific content of each task certainly varies case by case. But looking back, what they all had in common was this: things that were supposed to be placed as reference points for understanding my situation were, before I knew it, being treated as goals.
Goodhart’s Law operates quietly not only in organizations and systems, but also in personal task management and thought processes like these. Simply noticing this structure may allow many self-evaluations of “I couldn’t do it” to be replaced with a different perspective: “I chose not to this time.”
Top comments (0)