The values of the performance movement, which seeks to establish clear benchmarks for evaluating government officials, business executives, and other professionals, have permeated our society. Who could be against setting standards for accountability, especially of government employees and programs? Yet many of these guidelines have had unintended consequences, creating new problems of their own. Radin takes on many of the assumptions of the performance movement, arguing that too often a simplistic, one-size-fits-all mentality fails to take into account many factors that need to be considered to develop truly effective tools. Drawing on a wide range of ideas, including theories of intelligence and modes of thought, assumptions about numbers and information, and the nature of professionalism, Radin sheds light on the hidden complexities of creating standards to evalute performance. She details a number of concerns about government standards in particular, from accounting for issues of equity to allowing for complicated intergovernmental relationships and fragmentation of powers. She explores in detail how recent efforts in the U.S. government--the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) instituted by the current Bush administration--have fared in their intented goals in a system fraught with multiple functions and political realities. Looking outside the United States, she analyzes some successful efforts by nongovernmental organizations to impose standards of integrity and equity on their governments. Radin concludes with alternative assumptions and lessons for those embarking on performance measurement activities.