Demonstrating the amount of effort you’ve put into your work is an interesting challenge in the post-industrial age. In the past, we often had some big (or not so big) thing that we produced. That thing became a symbol of our work effort. It was hard to argue that someone didn’t put in a good day’s work when there was tangible product created at the end. But many of us don’t make “things” anymore. We analyze information, make decisions, or develop strategies. Our product is often presentations or documents. How do you show your effort when your product is more information, or in some cases, a simple answer to a question?
In my analytics workshop, I encourage people to boil findings down to a few salient points that tell a concise yet compelling story. For example, instead of showing a bar graph with ten years of historic sales data moving in an upward trend, you simply state the point of the graph (i.e., “Sales have been steadily increasing”) as part of a broader argument. Yet, while this creates a more concise and efficient story, I get tremendous resistance. The main concern that many people have is that if they boil their work to a few simple points, it won’t show all of the effort they put in. They believe that the graphs, charts, tables, and details demonstrate their hard work.
It’s time that we rethink this. First, we need to break our assumption that the number of slides or words used is a measure of quality or thought. I would even take that one step further and say the opposite is true. The more slides or words you use, the less you understand the big picture. Take Einstein’s famous equation E=MC^2. Einstein’s genius was his ability to reduce such a complex subject to a simple, elegant formula.
Second, we need to stop worrying that a statement is not credible unless it has first been qualified with a mountain of detailed data points. I’m not suggesting that we stop using data to draw conclusions. I am suggesting, however, that we don’t need to rehash the same data over and over again. If you’ve done the analysis once, why take your boss through it again? That’s not efficient. If he or she needs the original data to draw a conclusion then you aren’t really needed in the process.
Third, we should start our conversations with the results and then pull in our thought process or supporting data as needed. Leaders have to get used to this as well. Many of the people I speak with tell me that the main reason they provide so much detail before getting to the point is that their boss requires it. Starting from where the last person left off will move you much further in less time than rehashing old thinking.
It’s time to change our thinking about our work and the value we provide. Bigger isn’t always better, especially when it comes to making a point. If you feel the need to take your boss through your thinking from start to finish then you aren’t doing your job. As a boss, if you need to have your people take you from start to finish, you either have the wrong people or you have the wrong attitude about leading. Either one will slow productivity and the ability to make good decisions and take action.
Brad, it seems that in some institutions the managers are unwilling to move forward on an idea unless they get “all the supporting facts”. This may be due to the culture of the organization, or the idea that if something goes wrong, “you obviously missed something”.
Your method is very much like an academic journal article; the abstract – background of problem, methodology, solution – is what gets my attention. The paper has the gory details. Much more efficient way to get through a lot of differing projects and ideas!
Hey Chris,
Great point. I think one of the problem is that people try to focus too much on getting all of the possible facts or data rather than getting their key questions answered. Those are two different things. There is always more data avaialable – the key is to focus on what you were trying to answer with that data and the degree to which you are confident in your answer (knowing that sometimes are answers are wrong). It’s never about the data – as someone once said, nearly every major business failure had a solid business case backing it.
On your second point, you grabbed the jist of what I was saying except, I would present a little differently than an academic journal article. I would do it in the reverse order that oyu mentioned. Background/context, then conclusion, then data and methods. Give people the answer first, then work through it if needed.
Thanks for clarifying the latter part. Yes, background then conclusion is the way to go. As I’m commenting on this one, I’m also reading your newest post…nice tie-in between the two!