I understand the fear, though - when you're data driven, you can actually numerically measure the contribution of every feature that's tested, and in a lot of cases figure out the exact impact on revenue. In a culture where everything is tested, it's a very small step from there to stack ranking your product designers based mostly on how the features they designed did.

I'm not necessarily against that as a valid way to measure job performance if it's done intelligently (for one, realizing that there's a lot of blind luck and variance, and it takes time to smooth out) - I mean, if you're in sales and you're not booking any sales, you don't get to hide from that. But it's also really easy to get ranking and evaluation schemes wrong, so I understand why people would be nervous about it and prefer soft-skill-based evaluations instead.