You may have noticed that there is an awful lot of information out there. Some of it pertinent to what we are doing, some of it correct, but much that is neither of those two things.
But how does a business sift through all the available information to come to a real understanding as to what is happening or, perhaps of more importance, what is going to happen?
Few organisations have a system or structure in place to decide on the truthfulness, reliability and utility of information. And that being the case, some businesses, almost by definition, will be making their decisions based on inaccurate and irrelevant information.
You have only to look at recent events to appreciate how much speculation, ‘expert’ comment and unsubstantiated reporting is generated to fulfil our need for instantaneous news reporting. Let me go out on a limb here, the for and against BREXIT arguments and the plethora of reporting around the COVID pandemic are ample examples in themselves where the quality of much of the information has been (… will be) found wanting.
That is not to say all reporting is wrong, but there is a significant challenge in identifying what to believe.
Image courtesy of FutUndBeidl
Good decisions tend to be based on a good overall understanding of the situation, and this should lead us to want the most relevant and accurate information so as to have the best chance of making a good decision and hence, hopefully, having a successful outcome.
Companies struggle in this regard as they are often structured within the traditional silos of business. Individual departments of a company tend to see things in a particular way, which will be linked to their role and objectives.
At Thomas Cook, for example, the general counsel was undoubtedly correct in a legal context to contest the case for liability in the tragic deaths of Bobby and Christi Shepherd in Corfu in 2006, although the sales department probably would have taken a different approach given the hit their collective ‘PR disaster’ had on the turnover figures. This occurrence, although hardly unpredictable given the business Thomas Cook is in, does highlight how much internal viewpoints can vary.
It is reasonable to assume that, for example, the marketing department will have a particular perspective on the business, which is likely to be different from, say, the purchasing or legal teams. Populated by very different people; the departmental standpoints will frequently mirror the experts we employ there. Let’s face it, few marketing people will ever hanker after transferring to the accounts department, or indeed vice versa, as they tend to be quite different persons. Although it is these personalities that may bring success to a department, they can also represent a barrier to understanding the perspective of others.
The result, not surprisingly, can be that departments come to different conclusions and courses of action. Now when this comes to taking forward the overall business strategy, we potentially have every department at odds over their understanding of what is happening and what is going to happen.
Frequently the only way to resolve such discrepancies will be to elevate the problem up through the management chain. In the absence of the authority or remit en route to make the required decision, contradictory recommendations will end up with senior executives, ultimately forcing the boardroom to weigh up the facts for themselves.
Image by courtesy of onewaystock.com
Now, I’m all for the board earning their money making decisions, but I’m less sure they have the time and focus to get into the minutiae of accuracy of information and reliability of sources before being able to make their decision. They are also unlikely to be immune to the biases mentioned above, and I think there is more than a grain of truth, as noted by the US writer Margaret J. Wheatley, that “too many problem-solving sessions become battlegrounds where decisions are made based on power rather than intelligence.”
Vested interests, biases and assumptions will play a significant part in a discussion of this kind. There would likely be an intolerance of ambiguity; viewing issues in simplistic absolute terms where potentially the loudest voice will win the day.
Let us say, just for example, that Business Development has identified gains from a potential M&A deal, whilst General Counsel believe there may be corruption allegations in the peripheries of such a transaction, whilst the Government Relations people say there is a presidential succession issue in the target country, whilst the security section has some doubts with inherent lawlessness in the region. Finally, the PR people say they have identified no reputational issues with the venture.
There are challenges facing the decision-makers in pulling this together into a coherent and successful strategy…
There will be many details behind these fairly bland summary statements, much of which will have been stripped away during the journey up the management chain. The wording may have changed beyond all recognition and in all likelihood additional information will be required in order to clarify the situation. How does all of this information interact as a whole and what does it mean?
In short, this is what intelligence delivers to business. Often a misunderstood concept, intelligence aims to collect, analyse and disseminate quantified information, so to provide comprehensive, independent and unbiased assistance to decision-makers.
… a Google search or a toss of a coin are also options, but not as highly commended.
Leave A Comment