20/09/2026
Share:
20/09/2026
Share:
After more than two decades working across law, management and executive education, I have become increasingly cautious about one common mistake: confusing activity with achievement.
I see it even in legal practice. Files get thicker, meetings multiply, correspondence increases and everyone appears busy. Yet one question remains: What actually moved forward?
The same question applies to institutions and governments. Kuwait is currently experiencing substantial legislative activity. The Kuwait Laws Portal records 83 entries under its “Laws” category in 2024, 117 in 2025 and 84 so far in 2026 - 284 entries in less than three years. The figure reflects different legislative instruments, but it clearly illustrates the pace of legal change.
The more important question, however, is not how many laws are issued. It is what difference they make in practice. That is where law meets leadership.
One principle I repeatedly encounter in Brian Tracy’s leadership methodology is simple: if you cannot measure performance, you cannot manage it effectively. Clear objectives, measurable standards, defined responsibilities, review and adjustment are central to high-performance management.
Government, of course, is more complex than business. A state cannot be reduced to a profit-and-loss statement. Justice, trust, accessibility, quality, resilience and fairness matter as much as speed or cost. The challenge is therefore not to measure more, but to measure the right things.
This is precisely what leading international public-administration frameworks attempt to do. Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government looks at public administration through areas including Strategy and Leadership, Public Policy, National Delivery, and People and Processes. The OECD similarly examines not just outcomes, but also the governance systems, resources and institutional capabilities that produce them. Cambridge research on public-sector productivity likewise stresses that productivity is not simply about reducing cost; quality, effectiveness, management capability and public value matter too. This has direct relevance to Kuwait’s current reforms.
Take the new Economic Circuits Law. The legislation creates a specialised procedural structure for economic disputes, including settlement mechanisms, case preparation, electronic litigation and specialised procedures. The law itself is an important output. But once it is implemented, the more meaningful questions begin: How long does an economic dispute actually take? How many cases are settled early? How long do expert reports take? Where do delays occur? How predictable is the process for businesses and investors?
The same applies to the proposed new Arbitration Law. Its success should not ultimately be measured simply by saying Kuwait has enacted a modern arbitration framework. The more important question will be whether commercial disputes become faster, more predictable and more effective in practice.
The modernisation of notarisation provides another example. Expanding digital documentation, remote procedures and electronic verification is important. But the true measure is how much time is saved, how many physical visits are eliminated, how reliably transactions are completed and how users experience the service. This is the difference between measuring activity and measuring impact.
From my own experience managing organisations, I have learned that a KPI nobody reviews is decoration, a target without an accountable owner is an aspiration, and a report that identifies a problem but leads to no corrective action is simply another report.
The value of performance management lies in the cycle: define the objective, establish the baseline, assign responsibility, measure progress, review the evidence, correct course and measure again.
For public institutions, the same logic applies. Measurement should not be treated as a search for blame. A performance indicator is a tool for improvement. It shows what is working, where delays remain and what needs to change.
For every major reform, five questions are enough: What did we intend to achieve? What was actually delivered? What changed for citizens, businesses or investors? What does the evidence tell us? And what should we improve next?
That, to me, is leadership at institutional scale. Legislation provides the architecture. Institutions turn it into action. Data tells us what happened. Leadership decides what to do next. And ultimately, the real measure of reform is not how many decisions we make, but how consistently we turn those decisions into better results.
Dr. Fawaz Khaled Alkhateeb
Managing Partner, Taher Group Law Firm
Legal Strategist & Executive Educator
