Outside the Box
Applying landing metrics on the ranch.
April 1, 2026
Every aircraft landing or failure to land on the flight deck of a naval aircraft carrier is evaluated and graded by the landing signal officer (LSO). The LSO is an experienced aviator tasked with the difficult, dangerous and potentially deadly job of guiding aviators back to a small piece of steel in the middle of a very large body of water — regardless of weather or conditions. During landing operations, the LSO determines whether a landing is safe to continue, or if it should be aborted. Additionally, the LSO is the final authority to determine if a naval aviator will be certified as carrier-qualified.
A landing is evaluated on multiple criteria, including line-up, glide slope, pitch and speed, wire catch, and corrections made during the approach and landing. These are then combined to create a score. The highest score is reserved for nearly flawless landings under very unfavorable conditions; aviators may have successful careers without ever receiving an “OK Underlined.” The next high score is termed “OK,” and is followed by six lower-scoring categories.
Notice the absence of descriptors such as superior, excellent or good. Why would this be? In the realm of carrier operations, the margins of error are small; any affirmation that suggests that an aviator has “arrived” puts the pilot, crew and aircraft in jeopardy. Each score is delivered with detailed notes that provide context and areas of improvement rather than a generic pat on the back.
Taking stock
In the realm of performance metrics and key results areas across industries, it is time to rethink our approach by asking two questions:
- Are we measuring the right factors?
- Are we scoring to affirm our bias, or to improve/sustain performance?
Business governance consultant Tony Fish suggests we must confront an uncomfortable reality: “The very things that got you here and crafted success for you will not be the things to get you to where you need to go.”
Be flexible
Metrics and key performance indicators are not to be viewed as core principles, but rather flexible tools designed to help guide a business and indicate its trajectory within the context of current conditions. As conditions and context shift, so should the metrics.
For example: Improving number of calves weaned as a percentage of cows exposed might be an important measurable goal. However, the cost of getting to 100% may be more costly and even damaging to the enterprise’s profitability after reaching a particular milestone.
While improvement may be the early goal with some indicators, stabilizing performance within a functional range may be the ultimate objective. Having all the cows in the herd calving in the first 21 days of the calving season might be highly productive, but might also burn out the ranch crew and lead to increased employee turnover.
Preferred metrics and measures are often ones that align with the strengths and preferences of management — individual and herd-level performance are often the focus of the stockman. If these measures are isolated from financial and other business indicators, that focus may ultimately lead to the demise of the enterprise.
Be wary of biases
We must be wary of sticking with a set of metrics that confirm our assumptions and biases instead of being continually assessed to determine their usefulness. For example, the beef industry has been able to meet growing demand in the face of a shrinking cow herd by increasing carcass weights. This approach is not sustainable. There are anatomical and metabolic limits that will eventually render any increase in individual carcass weights unworkable.
Furthermore, there are unintended consequences that come with excessive focus on any one trait. For example, if the price of feeder calves were to be reset to a lower price for a prolonged period, would the revenue be sufficient to allow profitable feeding of a cow herd with historically large mature weights and milk production?
The LSO seeks to evaluate only those factors that influence safe landings and to deliver feedback directly, clearly and objectively. The ranch management team can learn much from such an approach as it relates to the health of its own enterprise.
Perhaps it is time to embrace the appropriate application of “OK.”
Editor’s note: In “Outside the Box,” a regular, separate column in both the Angus Journal ® and the Angus Beef Bulletin®, author Tom Field shares his experience as a cattleman and his insightful perspective on the business aspects of ranching. Field is director of the Engler Agribusiness Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, where he holds the Paul Engler Chair of Agribusiness Entrepreneurship.
Related Content
