Chief Learning Officer - April 2008 - (Page 62) BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE DID YOU KNOW? Astronomer Carl Sagan said: “Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or exciting our sense of wonder.” often leads to groupthink, which also can be disastrous, as in the case of NASA’s decision to launch the Challenger in 1986. These fallacies of reason are not isolated to politics, government and UFOs. A learning leader for a large corporate entity made the decision to launch a coaching initiative. The base cost was $30,000 per person with 15 people participating. When challenged on the expense, the reason for her decision to move forward was exposed: She explained, “Everyone knows that executive coaching can improve job performance.” How can chief learning officers avoid fallacies of reason? They can open themselves up to scientific thinking. Scientific Approach to Reason Thinking like a scientist doesn’t mean you have to become one. Nor does it mean you have to routinely conduct controlled experiments. It means addressing a few simple questions when asked to draw conclusions about an issue, make a decision and/or support a claim. 1. What is the claim? The first question defines the claim or the issue at hand. For example: “Everyone knows that executive coaching can improve job performance.” Who can argue with a statement like that? The claim is absent of any real meaning. To develop meaning, specifics are needed — a claim must be “operationalized” in order to get the real picture of what is being stated. The intent is to get measurable clarification and a clear understanding. Questions that could be asked if such a claim is made about executive coaching may include: • How do you define executive coaching? • What business opportunities can be improved? • What is happening on the job that needs to change? • What will people learn through that method they don’t already know? • Who needs coaching? 2. What evidence supports the claim? Evidence can mislead us, so our conclusions must not be drawn from quantity of evidence alone. The quality of evidence is as important. More than 2 million responses out of a potential 10 million, as in the 1936 presidential forecast, represent a lot of data. But the data came from a select group. To counter this problem, look for patterns of evidence supporting a claim. More importantly, look for evidence that disproves the claim. When the evidence is presented to you, ask questions about the source of the evidence, potential bias of the source and the methodology used to develop the evidence. 3. What are alternative explanations? If evidence of the claim indicates, for example, that executive coaching actually increased sales by 30 percent and improved efficiencies by 45 percent, then ask for alternative explanations for that performance. Other factors might have contributed to the sales and efficiency gains. How does the executive coaching stack up? If the evidence supporting the claim does not account for other factors, then the evidence is meaningless. If the evidence does account for other factors, then what are those factors and how much did they contribute? Thinking like a scientist doesn’t mean you have to become one. It means addressing a few simple questions when asked to draw conclusions about an issue, make a decision or support a claim. 4. How reasonable are the explanations? Once the alternative explanations for the claim are identified, ask: How reasonable are they? Can the explanations be tested, or are they vague and ambiguous? How simple are the explanations? If they are too complicated with too many assumptions, throw them out. Look for the explanations with the fewest assumptions. Finally, look at the explanations (including the executive coaching) and see how they stack up against well-established knowledge. Our conclusions too often are drawn from what we think we see, what we want to see or what someone else wants us to see. Wouldn’t we see more clearly if we finetuned our vision by taking a more scientific approach to our reasoning? CLO Patti Phillips is president and CEO of the ROI Institute. She is co-author and editor of a number of publications, including the Measurement & Evaluation Series of books. She can be reached at editor@clomedia.com. 62 Chief Learning Officer • April 2008 • www.clomedia.com http://www.clomedia.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.