Syncing your data and your decisions

Is there such a thing as having too much data? Absolutely and more and more organizations are starting to feel the pain.

Automation, especially over the internet has allowed even the smallest companies to generate vast amounts of data. Unfortunately, most of it goes unused. Either it sits in databases and on servers unknown to all but a few people in the IT department (whose job is to collect it not use it) or it makes its way onto reports creating significant noise and clutter. In either case, it’s not helping.

But the sheer quantity of data isn’t the only problem that is overwhelming leaders. The bigger problem lies with data that are not aligned with decisions. I’m not talking about having the wrong data (which is a problem unto itself). Rather, I am referring to having the right data that is either too granular or frequent to be useful.

For example, one company reported employee satisfaction scores to two decimal places. The scores represented the percentage of people who answered a given question favorably (4 or 5 out of 5). There were two problems with this level of reporting.

First, on a scale of 0 to 100 (since it was a percentage), the hundredths place is very sensitive to small changes. When changes occur on a report, people have a natural tendency to spend time trying to understand and explain them. Control charts and other lean/six sigma tools can help leaders distill real changes from noise, but the constant changes draw attention away from more important problems.

Second and more importantly, the decisions that a leader would make on such data are not distinguishable in .01 increments. In fact, a change of 4 or 5 points might not even differentiate a decision or action.

From a statistical standpoint, small changes might have meaning. From a practical standpoint, they often don’t (see It might be significant but that doesn't mean it matters).

The leaders who used this satisfaction report would get bogged down in discussions about why a number went from 65.34 to 65.89. They’d mistakenly take credit for "successful" programs, "good" implementation, and "responsiveness" to employee needs. However, from an employee standpoint, there really wasn’t much change. In either case, one out of every three people was still not happy.

Reporting should be aligned with decision-making. If your actions would be the same at 60, 65, or even 70, then there is no reason to report to a lower level of granularity than that. For diagnostic and “drill-down” purposes, having the exact number might be helpful. But, even then, it’s probably not necessary to go to the second decimal place.

Context should drive precision. For satisfaction, it is probably ok to report results in quartiles as that is the level that many people would differentiate their actions. On the other hand, for some manufacturing processes, the level of precision might need to go to five or six decimals places to support their decisions and actions.

The other type of precision that creates problems for leaders is frequency. In many organizations, reports come out too often. We’ve all heard advice when losing weight or making investments that we shouldn’t check the data every day. The same is true in business. Reporting too frequently can put your leaders into a reactive mode. They take new actions before seeing if prior actions are working. In The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge introduced this problem:

Virtually all feedback processes have some form of delay. But often the delays are either unrecognized or not well understood. This can result in “overshoot,” going further than needed to achieve a desired result. The delay between eating and feeling full has been the nemesis of many a happy diner…Unrecognized delays can also lead to instability and breakdown, especially when they are long.”

Senge’s most famous example of this is setting the temperature in an unfamiliar shower. We turn the faucet toward hot. We then test the water. If it’s still cold, we turn the faucet further toward hot. We test it again. If it is still cold or just lukewarm, we once again turn the faucet further. Finally, once the system catches up with itself, when we reach in, we are scalded by extremely hot water. Overcompensating in the middle of a feedback loop will often get you burned.

Reporting too frequently can cause dysfunctional behavior. In one organization, customer satisfaction scores were released each week. If the scores went down, leaders would jump into action in an attempt to improve them. If the scores went up, they would often credit the success of their latest program.

The problem with this approach is that the scores that the leaders were seeing one week often had nothing to do with their last set of decisions. More likely, they were reflective of program or interventions that were put into place weeks or even month prior.

Think about a typical cycle in your organization. How long does it take between identifying a problem, determining a solution, implementing the solution, and having that solution start to add value? It’s probably a lot longer than a week.

Because of reporting frequency, many leaders fall into the trap of taking a new action before understanding if their prior actions have had any impact.

The context in which you make decisions should drive frequency just as it drives granularity. Monthly or quarterly reporting might be appropriate for satisfaction-related data. However, it would certainly be inappropriate for a day trader who needs real time information on the market.

There are times when extra precision is helpful. If you have just launched a new initiative, you might want to report more regularly and to a finer level of detail just to see if and when changes are starting to occur. But then again, that is a different context and your decisions and actions would reflect that. For general day-to-day operations, too much granularity and too much frequency will generally create unnecessary (and sometimes unhelpful) actions and effort.

Take a look at your reports and ask yourself these questions:

1) Is my data at the right level of granularity? What are the different “trigger points” in my decision-making? Is my data aligned with those trigger points?

2) How long does it take from the time I recognize a problem to the time a solution might start to show signs of working? Is my report frequency aligned with that cycle?

Synchronizing your data and decisions will help you focus on decision-making and actions. It will reduce the amount of data (and noise) with which you are dealing. It will save you time. And, it will probably drive faster, more efficient decisions and actions.

Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.

Being two minutes smarter than your audience doesn’t work

About ten years ago, I had the opportunity to hear Sandy Linver, the founder of Speakeasy, Inc and the author of the book, Speak and Get Results: The Complete Guide to Presentations and Speeches That Work in Any Business Situation. Sandy’s presentation was on how to give presentations.

During the Q&A, someone asked what to do if you are called in, at the last minute, to substitute on a presentation for which you don’t know the content. Sandy’s response was quick, simple, and clear. You should never do a presentation on a topic that you don’t fully understand.

I’ve often thought about her response. It seems as though true understanding has given way to detailed notes pages and “message point” documents designed to allow anyone to deliver a message.

But there is a problem with such tools. They don’t replace understanding. If the only difference between a presenter and his or her audience is that one has pre-read the script, your communication or training event is going to fall short. As soon as someone asks a question that wasn’t anticipated or wants more detail, the conversation is over.

Unfortunately, the remedy in such situations is usually to try to anticipate more questions and pack more detail into the notes or message points. The result isn’t more effective communication. Rather, the communication becomes more mechanical and lifeless to the receiver. A good communicator brings life and meaning to message points and notes. He or she doesn’t simply recite them.

I’ve been in many situations where I’ve been asked to over simplify the content of a presentation so that any leader can be pulled in to teach it. While that makes it easier for the leader, it short-changes the participants.

If a topic is important enough to warrant your people’s time and attention, it should be important enough to have a qualified person deliver it. There are plenty excuses for why leaders aren’t ready or able to deliver such messages. But, those are just excuses.

If you or your leaders do not have enough understanding to communicate with or train your people, find someone who does.

Being two minutes smarter than your audience doesn’t help. They could have read the notes pages or message points just as well as you. A leader’s job is to create meaning and make connections. Anyone can read a script.

Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.

Are you playing with a full deck? Personality Poker will help you find out.

How often do you hear someone say, "I'm just working with the hand I was dealt" when referring to their strengths and weaknesses?  It's a pretty common phrase.  Well, Steve Shapiro, an innovation expert and author of 24/7 Innovation and The Little Book of Big Innovation Ideas, has taken that idea one step further.  Shapiro just released Personality Poker, a custom card deck and book that helps individuals and teams gain better insight into their personality styles. 

You may be asking why we need another personality tool.  After all, the market seems to be flooded with tools, assessments, books, and instruments all designed to help you hone in on your personality.  The answer is simple: Personality Poker demystifies the process, makes it fun, and makes it simple. It also provides the most practical advice on how to translate understanding of your personality into improved performance.

Most assessments are long and drawn out and often require three steps:  completing the assessment, processing the assessment, debriefing the results.  Those three steps can sometimes occur weeks apart.  And, they are done individually.  If you want to to understand other people's strengths, you often need a fourth step, some type of group debrief.

Personality Poker combines those four steps into a a 60 minute activity that will have your people buzzing for weeks.  The premise of the game is simple - collect and/or trade cards until you have a "hand" that best represents who you are.  Shapiro has spent over a decade honing the cards so that they provide a reliable and valid assessment of people's personalities.  He has cleverly adapted something that we are familiar with, a standard card deck, into an assessment tool.  Each attribute of the card provides a different insight into your personality style:  

• Color - your thinking style
• Suit - your innovation style, where you work best in the innovation process
• Number - where and how you draw energy

When you finally create your "ideal" hand, you will see a simple yet powerful snapshot of who you are and how you interact with others.  You can use that understanding to guide further discussion, assemble teams, or provide coaching to your people.  The accompanying Personality Poker book provides in-depth discussion and analysis of the various personality styles revealed through the cards.

I'd highly recommend Personality Poker to anyone who is interested in increasing innovation, improving performance, and developing high performing teams.  You can get more information about Personality Poker at http://personalitypokerbook.com/.  It's the last personality assessment that you'll ever need.

What ever happened to doing the right thing just because it was the right thing to do?

Verizon Wireless recently found itself in an uncomfortable position. It seems that a “software glitch” was accidentally charging data use charges when the customers weren’t using any data services.

The story made its way into the local and national media. Verizon is now issuing credits to its customers.
However, the back story of this situation is a bit more interesting. Theresa Dixon Murray noticed the erroneous charges on her son’s account. She contacted Verizon on and off for six months. Each time she called, she got a different excuse and/or reason for the charge (none of which were correct). Finally, due to some other reasons, her son lost phone privileges for a month. The phone was locked up. Yet when the bill came, the data charges were still there.

At this point, she contacted Verizon again. This time, she didn’t identify herself as a customer. Instead she approached them through her job as a business columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper. Verizon’s response was quite different. According to Dixon Murray, “As a customer it (the response) was one way, as a reporter it was a very different way.” Within a week, Verizon flew in people from their corporate offices.  http://videos.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/2010/10/plain_dealer_business_columnis.html

This story reminded me of another incident about two years ago involving United Airlines. Dave Carroll, a musician from Canada, was on a United flight. As he sat waiting for take-off, he saw the baggage handlers throwing his $3,500 guitar. When he arrived in Chicago, the guitar was broken. Despite many months of trying, he could not get United to compensate him for the damages (or admit fault). Finally, Carroll went around United creating a music video called “United Breaks Guitars.” The video went viral on YouTube™ registering four million hits in just ten days. United ultimately compensated Mr. Carroll and even asked if they could use his video for an internal training program. http://news.softpedia.com/news/United-Airlines-Breaks-Guitars-Loses-180-Million-117494.shtml

In the end, each company did the right thing.  The problem is that they missed the opportunity to do it just because it was the right thing to do.  In both cases, the companies didn't take action until some other pressure forced them to do so.  In other words, they didn't take action to help their customer, they took the action to help themselves.


Why does it take such extreme actions to get a company to do the right thing? Few customers have the access to the media or the time and ability to create a music video that prompted action in these cases. Does that mean that most customers just have to accept such problems and move on?

I understand that businesses are facing increased pressure to manage expenses. However, honoring their end of a business transaction shouldn't be considered an expense. Ms. Dixon Murray wasn’t asking for a year of free service, a discount on service, or a free cell phone. She just didn’t want to pay for services that she didn’t use. I’m sure that if Verizon had a software glitch causing them miss a bill one month, they would think it was reasonable to make a correction on the next month’s bill. So why was it so hard for them to properly address a situation where a customer was charged for something that she didn’t use?

Similarly, David Carroll wasn’t looking for free flights or upgrades. He just wanted to be compensated for the property that the airline damaged.

What type of leadership are we providing if front line customer service representatives are unable or afraid to do the right thing? How well are we training our people if they don’t understand the difference between discretionary expenses and the business’ obligation to its customers.

Leader’s need to step back and remember that customers are not their adversaries. It’s also time for leaders to step up and show the courage and confidence needed to do what’s right - whether with customers, their own people, or the communities in which they operate.

If you or your leaders cannot do the right thing simply because it’s right, it might be time to find some new leaders.


Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.

Did video really kill the radio star?

A week ago Sunday, September 26, was the 50th anniversary of the first Nixon/Kennedy debate. Many consider this event to be a major turning point in U.S. politics. It was the first time a presidential debate was televised. Many also consider this a turning point in Nixon’s career. The general consensus seemed to be that he had a “face for radio”.


The data on the debate is interesting. Those who watched it on TV believe that Kennedy performed best. Those listening on radio believed that Nixon performed best.


Wally Podrazik, author of “Watching TV: Six Decades of American Television” commented that Nixon was perceived as a man of the 50’s era. Kennedy represented the future and new ways of the 60s. Most people agreed. Nixon seemed uncomfortable and awkward in front of the camera. Many felt that he looked worn out and tired. Kennedy, young and handsome, played to the camera to his advantage.


At first glance, the data seems to support a logical conclusion. Television seemed to be Kennedy’s medium helping him sneak out a victory by a mere 113,000 votes (.1% of the popular vote)


But Bruce Dumont, host of radio’s “Beyond the Beltway”, has a different take. Perhaps television wasn’t the cause of the viewers’ higher marks for Kennedy. Maybe it just happened to be that those people with televisions were predisposed to Kennedy’s message.


Dumont points out that in the 60s television was less widespread than today. It is important to consider WHO was likely to have a television back then.


At the time, televisions were more common in urban areas and cities with large Catholic populations (Kennedy’s religion was a big issue at the time). Those types of people generally aligned more with Kennedy’s Democratic, message. People in the South, West and rural areas had less access to television. They tended to align themselves with a Republican message.


Dumont’s observations provide a striking example of two issues that, on the surface, appear to have a causal relationship. However, digging deeper suggests that perhaps they are two correlated items with a common cause. In this case, the “cause” of both candidate preference and type of media used to access the debate was possibly where a person lived (and the political leanings associated with that).


This also provides a good reminder that looking at data, without considering the broader context in which that data occurred, can lead to erroneous conclusions.


Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.