How Metrics-Obsessed Support Can Undermine Real Relationships

 I’ll be honest. I’ve always had a complicated relationship with numbers. Back when I was a journalist, I was taught to chase facts, figures, and stats to build a solid story. Now, working for a customer service software provider, I often encounter that same numbers-first mindset at play. It’s the constant worship at the altar of metrics: CSAT, NPS, AHT, FRT.

And while those numbers absolutely matter, here’s an uncomfortable truth I’ve come to realize: metrics, when treated as the whole story, can be a dangerous delusion.

Let me explain.

Numbers Can’t Tell You Why

In every contact center I come across, leaders rattle off their average handle time and NPS scores without missing a beat. But when you ask why customers feel the way they do, or why a high NPS today might not translate to loyalty tomorrow, things get a little murkier.

In fact, a study found that 87% of brands say they deliver “excellent” CX – yet only 11% of customers agree. That gap proves great metrics on paper don’t always mean happy customers. Are we serving the customer, or just serving the scoreboard?

Shankar Sri, Vice President of Customer Experience at Hiver, articulated this in a conversation with me the other day:

“All these metrics are lagging indicators. A customer might be a promoter today, but that doesn’t guarantee they’ll stick around. Your customers might scream about how your product sucks every year and still renew — because switching is a bigger pain. Metrics don’t capture intent, context or nuance.”

That stuck with me. Because it’s a reminder that data can obscure as much as it reveals. A positive CSAT score might mean an agent was polite, but did the customer actually get what they needed? Did we leave them frustrated but resigned? Metrics won’t tell you.

The Tyranny of Lagging Indicators

Most support metrics track what’s already happened. They’re reactive by design. NPS tells you if someone says they’d recommend you, after the fact. CSAT captures how a customer feels post-interaction.

But here’s the thing: relationships aren’t built in post-mortems. By the time a number flags a problem, it’s often too late. Worse, when support teams chase those numbers too aggressively, it can warp behavior. Agents start prioritizing handle times over actual resolutions. Or nudging customers toward a “5-star” response instead of genuinely listening.

And here’s where the human element comes in. Despite technological advancements, 52% of support professionals note that their customers prefer human-only interactions. This highlights the enduring value of empathy and personal connection in customer service – something metrics can’t always measure.

I’ve seen it firsthand. A well-meaning dashboard designed to optimize performance slowly turns the team into score-chasers. And customers, smart as they are, feel it.

Why Empathy Deserves a Place in Your Metrics

I’m not suggesting we abandon data. I love a clean, well-organized dashboard as much as anyone. However, we do need to rebalance our obsession with hard metrics by giving equal weight to the qualitative, messy, human side of customer service.

Here’s what I recommend:

1. Contextualize your metrics: Is a dip in CSAT because of a system outage? Was a spike in handle time due to product changes? Numbers without narrative mislead.
   
   
2. Listen to your agents: They’re the first to spot pattern shifts long before your reporting dashboard catches up.
   
   
3. Watch for relationship signals: How often do high-value customers call? What’s the tone of their conversations? Are they asking about new features or only complaining?
   
   
4. Consider adding qualitative metrics alongside quantitative ones: Post-interaction notes on sentiment or agent-reported issues can provide a fuller picture than numbers alone.

The Real KPI: Customer Trust

At the end of the day, support isn’t only about numbers; it’s about trust. And trust isn’t built in a single interaction or captured in a five-star rating. It’s earned over time through consistency, empathy, and effort that sometimes defies what the metrics would recommend.

The metrics are a map, not the terrain. And if we don’t get better at reading between the lines, we’ll keep mistaking activity for impact.