(This is another in the “Where’s Dale?” series. Can you guess where this picture was taken? It was not California and the tree is not a Sequoia. The location will be identified in a subsequent E-flash. Dale shares some related thoughts below.)

I suppose some might consider it the curse of Lean Six Sigma. It is the analytical mindset that is always questioning the statements and pronouncements of others.

One of my favorite quotes is from Artemus Ward (in the 1800’s). He said:

“It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble.
It’s the things we know that just ain’t so.”

While I might applaud the ideals of many of the “tree hugger” organizations, I often find that I am wishing that I could listen to a seasoned Black Belt present objective data, and talk about “p-values.” I would probably find many of the claims and proposals much more credible if I believed they really were treating the data objectively. I always have the feeling that they already “know” the answer and they are only looking for data that “supports” their position. If they found a contrary scientific analysis, they would ignore it.

This same failure to honestly use data is not limited to one group or one side of the argument. I have seen it in far too many situations and arguments. It does seem to me however, that those who utilize “political correctness” arguments often do so because they do not have the power of data and scientific reasoning on their side.

Many of you may be familiar with the story of Larry Summers, then president of Harvard University (and former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration). In January 2005, he presented a provocative hypothesis based on scientific research that suggested that men and women might have different innate abilities in math and science. (He did not suggest that a woman could not be successful in these fields.) From that point on, there was no argument about the validity of the data or the accuracy of the analysis – it was only about the adverse impact that such a hypothesis might have on recruiting women scholars. The “PC” uproar was so great that Summers was forced to resign.

Unfortunately, I believe that we diminish our ability to solve major problems and compete as a nation when we refuse to talk about legitimate scientific data and objective analysis. Not every “scientist” may agree with the data and the analysis, but let’s have an honest debate about measurement systems; the difference between correlation and causation: confidence intervals; p-values; etc.

I realize that the “average citizen” might not be familiar with some of these concepts, but I believe they can understand much more if they were given the chance. (As proof of that belief, I offer results from students with little/no analytical background who come to understand these principles in TQM Network’s Lean Six Sigma training with Scott Lasater.)

The “media” could be a tremendous resource in this area, but unfortunately, they are some of the worst offenders. They routinely “cherry-pick” some portion of the data or survey to support the headline that they want to use. Or worse, the headline is not supported by any of the analysis. Wouldn’t it be great if every story had to be approved by a Black Belt! Or wouldn’t it be great if there were an group of independent Black Belts that would analyze each major news story and tell the “real story” and/or the “full story.” I have often thought that each news outlet should have its own Black Belt on staff to give a stamp of approval to each story from a statistical/scientific perspective. I won’t hold my breath!

I won’t talk much about our Congress and elected politicians. These are not ignorant people. I would assume that many have had at least one class in Statistics in their educational background. They have to know that they are not following the scientific principles when they debate an issue. In the next 13 months, I challenge you to count the times when you hear any politician fairly represent scientific data and analysis.

The Organizational Connection

OK, I have been pretty hard on advocacy groups, media and politicians. But many organizations suffer from a similar malady – it just does not get the public attention. Leaders often make decisions without scientific data and analysis. Sometimes the data is not available, but often it is not available because no one knew what to ask, or no one thought to ask.

If your decision-making could use some help from the scientific methodology applied to the organization, please talk to Craig Crook or Scott Lasater at the TQM Network. They can help.

>> Subscribe to get blog updates by email.