We live in a world where people believe that when someone quotes statistics then it must be true! In fact, the only truth in statistical truth lies (oxymoron intended) in what a company, a researcher, a politician, a statistician wants us to believe.

Do you remember the old toothpaste commercials where it said “4 out of 5 dentists recommend XX brand”. Surprisingly there are many toothpaste brands that are bringing in a decent profit for conglomerates — so how could this be? Well, the secret is in the deconstructing the information and determining what it truly means.

Quite honestly there are a number of questions which the above example should elicit — how many dentists did you ask and are all the results included in this submission. Or did you ask 100 or so until you actually found four in a row that supported your premise? How was the question asked? Did you say to said dentist “We are from the XX toothpaste company and we were wondering if you recommend our toothpaste to your patients?” By asking the question in this manner, you would inevitably find that the dentists would say yes — because first, they don’t want to go into a whole dissertation with you as to why they wouldn’t be recommending your brand of toothpaste and secondarily, you haven’t asked whether your brand is the only one which is being recommended. The dentist could just be saying to his/her patients “use toothpaste” so again, the data is meaningless.

A few years back, I taught a course about communication and in the materials which were prepared by a known business school, statistics were incorporated which provided information on what kind of communication types, and the frequency of same, an individual in business could expect on a daily basis. There were two iterations on this — one from 2004 and another from 1999! Yes 1999! I guess communication hasn’t changed that much in the ensuing years! (note that the one from 1999 said fax was second only to phone calls).

Had I not pointed out this glaring issue (note even 2004 data is highly irrelevant) the class would have sat there, written it down, and taken it as gospel! People are too willing to accept things as indisputable when it is tied up in the shiny package of math and science.

Businesses are continuously using statistics to measure their so-called productivity, but one must question what behaviour do statistics drive and who is minding the shop of what they are saying.

Procurement is often saddled with the “hair-shirt” of cost-savings and what this does is drive a focus on the short-term (so that someone gets their bonus), as opposed to the long term of viewing the situation holistically and making decisions that inevitably will provide a beneficial total cost dimension in the future, but maybe not immediately. By proposing such approaches to the long-term, you need to accept the fact that you will be called a heretic and potentially burned at the proverbial stake, because our world revolves around quick hits, as opposed to long-term strategy.

I watch organizations daily in this hamster wheel existence, driving individuals to distraction who figure that the only way up the corporate ladder is to demonstrate a positive statistical outcome. There are many ways of presenting that number and mostly it will be to the benefit of the individual vs. the whole.

I am a heretic in this regard. I like to focus on the long-term strategy of defining a methodical approach that will certainly produce some measurable short-term results, but more profitable outlooks for the future — it is about qualitative and quantitative, with the former being of much more significance than the latter — but alas, in the search for the almighty statistic too many are pursuing the latter.

Unfortunately sometimes I feel like I am fighting a battle which is doomed. Nevertheless, I will continue until such time as I am mortally wounded, and of course, statistically speaking, the chances of that are 1 in a million!