| Visits to this URL: 300 Latest Revision: 110719 |
The data in the chart above is drawn from research by management consultants Kotter & Heskett done in the 1980s and reported in their classic 1992 book "Corporate Culture & Performance". It indicates that, in the opinion of professional financial analysts of that era, a strong corporate culture was more often associated with high financial performance than with low. The data also indicates that there was substantial disagreement among the analysts as to the question of how strong a link there actually is between strong corporate culture and high performance. Part of the cause of the analysts' disagreement can be found by distinguishing accurately between a datum and a fact. The inevitability of death is a datum for, although all living creatures try to avoid dying, we would be insane if we did not in due course accept that one day we will die. Knowing a datum, such as the inevitability of death, can be useful in that we have some idea in mind upon which we can “count” (even if we don’t want to think much about a datum such as the inevitability of death! -- an anxiety we often manage by avoiding estimating when it will occur). For all existing intents and purposes in a person's mind a datum is simply true. We therefore are wise to tie our assumptions as much as possible to at least one datum, if not many data. Reality, however, is that not all assumptions turn out to be reliable. So, when we discover an assumption not to be reliable, we have learned that it no longer is a datum – even if once we believed it was. In truth it was a presupposition or a presumption, and so now we must change all the assumptions or beliefs upon which we have been relying that sprang from our having once believed a "fact" was a datum. This takes time, sometimes a long time. We often don't like doing this work but, in the interim of completing the process of revising our assumptions and beliefs so that they accord with the data at hand, we are prone to feeling out of balance and even "upset". And why not? Our assumptions have indeed been upset. Although a fact is not a datum, we often take a fact as if it were a datum. A fact turns out often to be only an interpretation or an inference that someone, perhaps you or I, draws from, or imposes on, raw data and presents as if it were a datum -- possibly in a conversation, a report, or an essay such as this one, or a newspaper article, a documentary, an editorial, or a speech, or a web posting, an email, or even in an advertisement. Hopefully, facts are presented for purposes of agreeing on "firm ground" for collective problem-solving or decision-making, but unfortunately this is by no means always the case. The Bush-Blair presentation of the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was presented as if it were a datum and many people cited Bush's State of the Nation assertion thereon as if it actually were a datum. But that "fact" has since been found not to have been a datum; and there has ever since been sharp interest, suspicion, and intense controversy as to how that presentation came to be made. From this widely reported episode of high-level decision-making, we learn that a so-called "fact" is always an assumption -- even when the presenter or reporter of it as a fact may be unaware, or want others to be unaware, that the "fact" was only an assumption. This reality only becomes crystally clear to us when we have regained balance after having lost it through reliance upon an assumption that turned out to be painfully untrue. At this point we begin to make use, with zeal, of the important distinction between a fact and a datum. Theoretically, we all have choice in the facts we choose to make into a datum for the purposes of practical problem-solving. But let us be very clear that one would not know this choice existed if we did not know the language distinction between a fact and a datum. However this might have been in the past for any particular one of us, henceforth you and I do know this difference (but let's be ready to forgive each other if we forget it but also admit as much!). In teamwork, a key moment arrives when an important assumption is to be agreed by the team, i.e. accepted as a datum. Ideally, the input of team members who have insight into the situation to be summarized by the assumption will be the ones to whom the team will listen. But what if personal judgments have been made by some of the team members of others? Then there will be mistrust and resentment clouding the team's interactions in reaching a reliable judgment concerning the assumption they must make. But in a high- performance team we have course directions to set, performance goals to negotiate, plans to devise to get there, obstacles to be scaled or removed along the chosen way, urgent “fires to put out”, and, let us not forget, people to love at home. So, yes, communications must be as efficient as possible; and that means we do well to avoid to let inaccurate judgments of self-or-other enter our language, which in turn means defusing any thoughts that infer or require judgment that of others that might be inaccurate. Experience in high-performance teams reveals to us that when we make the effort to free our judgments of the temptation to assume a fact to be a datum, we make our communications significantly more efficient and less judging -- even if we, and perhaps others also, may temporarily feel as if we are not making much progress. This being so, how can we, when we need to, “navigate safely yet purposefully and efficiently the turbulent and treacherous Seas of Judgment” concerning the assumptions we need to make in order to make decisions? Following are some suggestions:
Henry Ford is famous for having said and also, I understand, having lived, the adage "Never complain, never explain". Ford lived about 3 generations ago. So it is relevant to ask today: Are the ways of thinking about the world that were successful when that dictum of Ford's was popular, which was contemporary with WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution and whose wisdom only played itself out with the end of the Cold War, likely to be vitalizing today? Sooner or later, after we experience a larger portion of the world than the one we were accustomed to experience in our family of origin, we discover that simplicity, desirable as it is, is almost not to be found except at the expense of judging almost everyone else's thinking as too complex or in some way venal. Simplicity is not the same as order. There is order in this universe, as is evidenced by the existence of scientific laws concerning Nature that we find usefully reliable in predicting and manipulating its inanimate elements for our survival or prosperity. If we want to be able to use scientific laws, we have first to learn what the ones accepted as true today are, appreciate their value and identify where they are likely to mislead. Then we can either apply the latest ones of which we are aware or refine them or propose/prove new ones. Likewise, there is order in the histories and narratives (and hopes and fears) of persons, families, organizations, and communities, and we can find the order in these living entities if we study them without prejudice. Then, when we have studied them and believe we have seen an order that strikes us as worth noting, to what purpose do we put what we have found? Well, how much of what we have learned (or observed) of the various orders we have individually, as an outcome of our different life experiences, studied and think we have verified are we obliged to share with others? In relation to that question, what if we do not distinguish carefully between our need for order (predictability) and our desires for simplicity (freedom from mental burden or pressure of time)? Well, in youth we make judgments, and as we age, we learn to temper our judgments so that they do as little violence as possible to the capacities for self-development, including affiliation and intellectual growth, of people, and yet are as precise as possible about things. If we grow up being especially habituated to judging others by virtue of the habits that our families, schools, employments, and professions entrained in us, then our task in learning to minimize the negative effects of our judgments of both others and ourselves is commensurately greater. Toronto, 071204-110719, excerpted from "Rational Presence", to be published in 2011 |
In problem-solving, we learn to make assumptions. We need to make assumptions in order to employ cause- and-effect rationality -- the process by which we analyze problems or issues, draw conclusions concerning their nature or causation, and hopefully devise solutions. Without insightful judgments concerning the assumptions we believe we must make, the most rational of problem-solving thinking will only mislead us. Indeed our successes as leaders depend upon the quality of judgments we bring to the making of assumptions concerning the problems we have been mandated to solve or the goals we have agreed to achieve. As problem-solvers, therefore, we learn to make temporary assumptions by the application of research and intuitional judgment, and to visit our assumptions again as we become aware of an actual change in our environment ... or, of our mood. We naturally take pride in our accomplishments, and ascribe much of our success to the skills in judging we believe we have developed. In teamwork, we discover that judgments, while necessary at certain times, can all too easily sow dissension and distrust. In particular, Jill’s judgment of another person, Jack, incurs twin risks: the risk of Jack feeling misunderstood and/or discounted and the risk of Jill’s thinking about all the situations of which she visualizes Jack a part being falsely coloured in her mind by the particular hue of her judgment of Jack. Equally, Jack’s judgment of Jill risks sowing and reaping the seeds of distrust and resentment. Of course the same is true of Jack's judgments of John, or Jill's of Jane. Consider now a hypothetical judgment that Jack makes of Jill, and also one that Jill makes of Jack. Suppose that Jack judges Jill “to be emotional”, and that Jill judges Jack “to be insensitive”. Are these reliable judgments? Are either based on data? Or are they only inferences supportive of the judger's desire to be the reality accepted, perhaps by third parties, as true of the other? And most crucially can Jack or Jill rise above any negative implications in the other's inferential judgments of him/her to treat such observations as potentially helpful feedback, rather than as statements of truth or causes for taking offence? Questions such as these occur often in organizations. As supervisors, leaders, and family members, we must solve problems as members of teams that must be productive in a larger setting. How can we refine the quality of judging skills we have honed to solve problems so that, rather than sowing resentment and mistrust in our team, we arrive at working assumptions that facilitate co-operation in the growth of true insight and productivity? Before we discuss this question, let us first examine some opinions of financial analysts concerning the effect of a strong culture, which everyone agrees facilitates rapid decision-making .. |
| Reading Material Sample |
| Services to Leaders Coaching Essay: Refining Judgments |
| Navigating the Seas of Judgment: Damned if you judge, or damned if you don’t? (c) 2007-11 by Angus Cunningham President, Authentix Coaches angusc@authentixcoaches.com |
| When we make a judgment, we are hopefully reaching for a solution either to something that is problematic for our family, organization, or community or to something that is bothering us personally. Sometimes, however, what appears to be a judgment to others is more accurately described as a reaction, a behaviour that occurs so quickly that it occurred virtually without deliberation. Sometimes, such behaviours are extremely productive. Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink!" describes how we often find that our first impressions prove later to be extraordinarily insightful, and this phenomenon, when we later reflect on a happy occurrence of it, encourages us to trust our "gut instincts". But judgments based on first impressions do not always lead to productive outcomes. Have you noticed that others' judgments concerning your intentions are not infrequently grossly incorrect? Perhaps the same may sometimes be true of your judgments of others' intentions? A most painful experience is to be caught having made a snap judgment of another that one thought came from superb insight, only later to learn that one's judgment had been significantly biased, and therefore both unfair and unwise. In my case I can think of quite a few judgments I made and acted upon that at least one of my parents, or a boss, warned me against. In those moments of judging, I certainly had some notion that my judgment was sound at the time. Yet in retrospect I have to acknowledge that my judgments then would have been more accurately described as only illogical, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, or downright insane. Legions of writers tell us that our judgment of others is very often unfair, so I think it's only fair to add that, sometimes, our judgments are unfair to ourselves, and sometimes to both. But to whomever a judgment is unfair, is it necessary? |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Source Data - "Corporate Culture & Performance" © 1992 by Kotter & Heskett
Analysis - Authentix Coaches
Analysis - Authentix Coaches
Source Data - "Corporate Culture & Performance" © 1992 by Kotter & Heskett
Analysis - Authentix Coaches
Analysis - Authentix Coaches
