Cheating is a bottom-up problem.
The bigger problem is often (especially in management "controlling") that quantification leads to

* abuse of metrics for putting pressure on subordinates, pressure, pressure, pressure

* abuse of metrics for veiling that the span of control is too wide. Leaders fool themselves by thinking that thanks to metrics they understand what's going on and apply influence (since the numbers change once they took action), but in reality they're as detached from what happens as a monkey playing with a typewriter would be detached from it.

------------
I've always been known for avoiding quantification if possible (not the least because I have often errors in long calculations) and wrote a whole university dissertation without a single equation (still with almost the best possible grade).

There are alternative ways of grasping reality; quantitiative ways and ways depending on a set of experiences, preferences, information that cannot be quantified.
There are nevertheless occasions when operational research calculations can reveal basic and important truths that would have slipped through and not be understood without it. There's also a lot of purpose in applying quantitative methods to very large datasets, as long as you don't expect a high resolution.


There's also something in between; at times it's a good idea to switch from one method to the other simply to shake up things, to break up old misconceptions. It may thus even be a wise move to apply the "inferior" method for a few months or years!