Two ends of the Bell curve

*Clink*

"Cheers!"

"Cheers."

"So how does it feel to be Employee of the Month for the... what is it? 8th month in a row???"

"11th month"

"Wow! Seriously? That's awesome. By the way, what got you late? You are normally here before me."

"It's my kid. He's not been well"

"Oh, anything serious?"

"No, nothing serious. The doctor said he should be ok in a day or so."

"Your doctor makes home visits? Man! That's... I don't know. But yaar, truly, it's amazing - the life you have. Staying with family. Full-time maidservant. Doctor visits home when needed. Dude, I couldn't be more jealous."

"Jealous? Trust me, you wouldn't want to have what I have"

"Are you kidding me? I would die... to have what you have. But what's the point having fancy dreams when you are a lazy bum like me, huh? I can't work like you, think like you, crack deals like you. I mean, I am not even close to make a proper comparison against you."

"I don't think so. I compare myself with you all the time. Staying alone. Unmarried. No family, no responsibilities. No fears about anything."

"Fears? What fears?"

"That... you will stop being the best... that people will get ahead of you... ... ... that some day I would be just another face in the crowd. No fame, no title."

"That's your fear? ... Like I said. No comparison. You know what I am afraid of? That I can be asked to go anytime. That computers can get the better of me any day now. And I can't do anything that will stop it."

"That bad huh?"

"Yup. ... ... anyway..."

...


The live band that evening was playing well...
"And she said, 'we are all just prisoners here, of our device'..."

Our research 'logic' is flawed (and we don't even know it)

We say and hear phrases like "our research suggests that...", or "I have observed this myself..." pretty often. What follows the phrase is usually logical... or at least presented that way. But it may not be so.

As much we love to believe and portray that we are rational managers, using logical decision-making trees, and considering all possible alternatives, we don't do so. So what comes in our way?

1. We have made up our minds even before we see the actual research findingsTake two people with opposing views, and present some data favouring one side. One side is as quick to dismiss it, as the second side is to accept it. The data couldn't influence the decision. Instead, it got 'rationalised' by the receiver.

2. Our 'sample size' is too smallLike it or not, we move around in the same kind of groups and people. As a result, we get to observe or receive only a limited set of information. Even the first-hand research done through market visits and 'vox-pops' are exactly this - small samples of a huge population. How can our findings be complete?

3. We tend to polarise all findingsMost data is presented as averages, and the differences are less / more significant. But during decision-making, we categorise it into yes/no or present/absent groups. Just a few minutes into a discussion, data presented as 'men use gadgets more frequently than women' will morph into 'men are gadget-crazy, and women don't use gadgets at all'.

4. Our minds can't hold opposite views togetherPeople are both selfish and generous, passive and aggresive, friendly and unapproachable (in different situations, at different times). The same is with the research findings. But we expect things to be either good or bad. We simply can't synthesise information when they're partly good and partly bad. Of course, we do lose out on important information when we force things to be that way.

So in a nutshell, our interpretations are neither right nor wrong, just incomplete. Now if only we could be ok with that.