But I don't think this true in the context of the modern US economy(why I qualified my statement as such). The political/economic situation is such that the efficacy of a given model is secondary to the viability of abstractions that make reference to it. How it performs in the meta-context of "salesmanship," re-inforcing acceptable political narratives, and social media, supercede its actual utility. The implosive (and false) model of finance, where the derivative of some object or system possesses more value than the thing which it references, has pervaded every aspect of our economy and culture.
Charitably, metrics are supposed to be a way to introduce objectivity and minimize implicit/unacknowledged biases in decision making, especially where performance is concerned. Even less charitably, it gives companies and managers cover for discriminatory practices by giving them objective standards to point at as justification for their decisions.
We'd all probably be much more comfortable with a less metric dependent world if we didn't also have the nagging feeling that it would lead to the same-old types of people scratching each others' backs.
It's harder for us to rely on systems that leave more room for personal judgement without oversight because we worry that decisions not attached to hard metrics are more likely to be subject to invidious biases. The charitable take is that the drive for metrics is motivated by a sincere attempt to mitigate these biases. The more cynical take I offered was saying that people use it as a way to cover their tracks against charges of discrimination.
The trouble is, if you've started from a fallacy of that scale, you're already doomed.
Introducing any form of measurement can in itself change the behaviour of the system you're trying to measure.
Introducing any form of target will bias a system towards reaching that target, but not necessarily without incurring costs elsewhere.
Introducing measurements and setting targets based on them is not only not an automatic win, it can easily become a significant loss.
The purpose of business consultants is to make money for business consultants. Pushing for standardized testing regimes is to pursue political goals and profit (for-profit charters, low-quality online education, re-segregation of schools). It's the same in academia. The question is always, "cui bono?"