Definition is not always a benefit, it stops you from being something you’re not defined to be.
Doing work you’re proud of doesn’t require definition.
Doing work you’re proud of demonstrates what you’re good at, rather than what you ‘should’ be doing.
If you believe something is right, do it, whether it’s part of your job title/agency vision/remit, or not.
People will define you, in their own minds, based upon your work, not your mission statement.
Quantative measures are so easy to optimize around that they’re the lazy yard stick to measure against.
Chasing after mechanisms to influence the number, rather than doing your level best to be a good citizen on the platform (which would in turn be rewarded with a higher number) just leads to people gaming the system.
The best systems are those where a win-win situation applies. We built a quant measure into a platform I helped design last year for micro-volunteering. There was concern that people would “just volunteer in order to get their score higher”, but frankly – who cares? More people taking part in the desired behaviour? Game away.
So, what is a platform’s desired behaviour? Is it to help people optimise around a number?
Or something else?