I feel you so very much.
My department was merged with a few others and renamed life sciences (anthropology, biology, biochemistry, and zoology) a few years ago. At the 5 year mark there was an event where they showed metrics of every researcher and professor.
As some of you may know, anthropology covers a wide range of fields, but we focus mainly on biological anthropology and social anthropology. What a SURPRISE it was for the department's director that publications from the biological sciences (not just bio anthropology) outweighed the social ones in about four times to one.
But really take a look at it. As social anthropologists, what is it we need to produce science? We can't do research on a lab, the materials mostly used are people and their experiences, and often those same subjects are countries or even continents away! When compared to the word-count of each article, social publications are very often three times as large as the average article in biology. Not to mention these are pieces written by a single researcher who needed to spend a few months on the field to collect that data, as opposed to teams that collaborate on the same project and lab.
So you see how that difference in the number of publications comes to be? The old adage 'publish of perish' cannot be applied or used as a measure of dedication and competence to all scientists the same. I'm not saying this advocating for support, but the reality of science making in vastly different disciplines has to be taken into account.
Department heads seem to have enjoyed quantity over quality in assessing the quality of their researchers, but something has to change.