The data in the chart above is drawn from research by management consultants Kotter & Heskett done in the 1980s
and reported in their classic 1992 book "Corporate Culture & Performance". It indicates that, in the opinion of
professional financial analysts of that era, a strong corporate culture was more often associated with high financial
performance than with low. The data also indicates that there was very substantial disagreement on the question
of how strong a link there actually is between strong corporate culture and high performance exists.
Part of the answer to the analysts' disagreement can be found by distinguishing accurately between a datum and a
fact. The inevitability of death is a datum for, although all living creatures try to avoid dying, we would be insane if
we did not in due course accept that one day we will die. Knowing a datum, such as the inevitability of death, can
be useful in that we have some idea in mind upon which we can “count” (even if we don’t want to think much about
a datum such as the inevitability of death! -- an anxiety we often manage by avoiding estimating when it will occur).
For all existing intents and purposes in a person's mind a datum is simply true. We therefore are wise to tie our
assumptions as much as possible to at least one datum, if not many data. Reality, however, is that not all
assumptions turn out to be reliable. So, when we discover an assumption not to be reliable, we have learned that it
no longer is a datum – even if once we believed it was. We then must change all the assumptions or beliefs upon
which we have been relying that sprang from our having once believed a "fact" was a datum. This takes time,
sometimes a long time. Probably the reason why we often don't like doing this work is that, in the interim of
completing the process of revising our assumptions and beliefs so that they accord with data, we are prone to
feeling out of balance and even upset.
Although a fact is not a datum, we often take a fact as if it were a datum. A fact turns out often to be only an
interpretation or an inference that someone, perhaps you or I, presents as a datum -- possibly in a conversation, a
report, or a paper such as this one, or a newspaper article, a documentary, an editorial, or a speech, or a web
posting, an email, or even in an advertisement. Hopefully, facts are presented for purposes of agreeing on "firm
ground" for collective problem-solving or decision-making, but unfortunately this is by no means always the case.
The Bush-Blair presentation of the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was presented as
if it were a datum and many people cited Bush's State of the Nation assertion thereon as if it actually were a datum.
But that "fact" has since been found not to have been a datum; and there has ever since been sharp interest,
suspicion, and intense controversy as to how that presentation came to be made. From this widely reported
episode of high-level decision-making, we learn that a so-called "fact" is always an assumption -- even when the
presenter or reporter of it as a fact may be unaware, or want others to be unaware, that the "fact" was only an
assumption. This reality only becomes crystally clear to us when we have regained balance after having lost it
through reliance upon an assumption that turned out to be painfully untrue. At this point we begin to make use,
with zeal, of the important distinction between a fact and a datum.
Conceptually, we all have choice in the facts we choose to make into a datum for the purposes of practical problem-
solving. But let us be very clear that one would not know this choice existed if we did not know the language
distinction between a fact and a datum. However this might have been in the past for any particular one of us,
henceforth you and I do know this difference (but let's forgive each other if we be forget it!).
In teamwork, a key moment arrives when an important assumption is to be taken as a datum by the team. Ideally,
the input of team members who have insight into the situation to be summarized by the assumption will be the ones
to whom the team will listen. But what if personal judgments have been made by some of the team members of
others? Then there will be mistrust and resentment clouding the team's interactions in reaching for a judgment
concerning the assumption they must make. But in a high-performance team we have course directions to set,
performance goals to negotiate, plans to devise to get there, obstacles to be scaled or removed along the chosen
way, urgent “fires to put out”, and, let us not forget, people to love at home. Communications must therefore be as
efficient as possible without our feeling them to include inaccurate judgments of self-or-other.
Experience in high-performance teams reveals to us that when we make the effort to free our judgments of the
temptation to assume a fact to be a datum, we make our communications significantly more efficient and less judging
-- even if we may temporarily feel as if we are not making much progress. This being so, how can we, when we need
to, “navigate safely yet purposefully and efficiently the turbulent and treacherous Seas of Judgment” concerning the
assumptions we need to make in order to make decisions? Following are some suggestions:
Henry Ford is famous for having said and also, I understand, having lived, the adage "Never complain, never
explain". Ford lived about 3 generations ago. So it is relevant to ask today: Are the ways of thinking about the
world that were successful when that dictum of Ford's was popular, which was contemporary with WWI and
the Bolshevik Revolution and whose wisdom only played itself out with the end of the Cold War, likely to be
vitalizing today?
Sooner or later, after we experience a larger world than the one we were accustomed to experience in our family of
origin, we discover that simplicity, desirable as it is, is almost not to be found except at the expense of judging
almost everyone else's thinking as too complex.
Simplicity is not the same as order. There is order in this universe, as is evidenced by the existence of scientific laws
concerning Nature that we find usefully reliable in predicting and manipulating its inanimate elements for our survival
or prosperity. If we want to be able to use scientific laws, we have first to learn what the ones accepted as true
today are. Then we can either apply the latest ones of which we are aware or refine them or propose/prove new
ones.
Likewise, there is order in the histories and narratives (and hopes and fears) of persons, families, organizations, and
communities, and we can find the order in these living entities if we study them without prejudice. Then, when we
have studied them and believe we have seen an order that strikes us as worth noting, to what purpose do we put
what we have found? Well, to justify our existence, many of us behave as if we ought to communicate with each
other so that we can share what we have learned (or observed) of the various orders we have individually, as an
outcome of our different life experiences, studied and think we have verified.
Yet, what if we do not distinguish carefully between our need for order (predictability) and our desires for simplicity
(freedom from mental burden or shortage of time)? Well, in youth we make judgments, and as we age, we learn to
temper our judgments so that they do as little violence as possible to the capacities for self-development, including
affiliation and intellectual growth, of people, and yet are as precise as possible about things. If we grow up being
especially habituated to judging others by virtue of the habits that our families, schools, employments, and
professions entrained in us, then our task in learning to minimize the negative effects of our judgments of both
others and ourselves is commensurately greater.
Toronto, 071204-100408, excerpted from "Rational Presence", to be published in 2010
and reported in their classic 1992 book "Corporate Culture & Performance". It indicates that, in the opinion of
professional financial analysts of that era, a strong corporate culture was more often associated with high financial
performance than with low. The data also indicates that there was very substantial disagreement on the question
of how strong a link there actually is between strong corporate culture and high performance exists.
Part of the answer to the analysts' disagreement can be found by distinguishing accurately between a datum and a
fact. The inevitability of death is a datum for, although all living creatures try to avoid dying, we would be insane if
we did not in due course accept that one day we will die. Knowing a datum, such as the inevitability of death, can
be useful in that we have some idea in mind upon which we can “count” (even if we don’t want to think much about
a datum such as the inevitability of death! -- an anxiety we often manage by avoiding estimating when it will occur).
For all existing intents and purposes in a person's mind a datum is simply true. We therefore are wise to tie our
assumptions as much as possible to at least one datum, if not many data. Reality, however, is that not all
assumptions turn out to be reliable. So, when we discover an assumption not to be reliable, we have learned that it
no longer is a datum – even if once we believed it was. We then must change all the assumptions or beliefs upon
which we have been relying that sprang from our having once believed a "fact" was a datum. This takes time,
sometimes a long time. Probably the reason why we often don't like doing this work is that, in the interim of
completing the process of revising our assumptions and beliefs so that they accord with data, we are prone to
feeling out of balance and even upset.
Although a fact is not a datum, we often take a fact as if it were a datum. A fact turns out often to be only an
interpretation or an inference that someone, perhaps you or I, presents as a datum -- possibly in a conversation, a
report, or a paper such as this one, or a newspaper article, a documentary, an editorial, or a speech, or a web
posting, an email, or even in an advertisement. Hopefully, facts are presented for purposes of agreeing on "firm
ground" for collective problem-solving or decision-making, but unfortunately this is by no means always the case.
The Bush-Blair presentation of the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was presented as
if it were a datum and many people cited Bush's State of the Nation assertion thereon as if it actually were a datum.
But that "fact" has since been found not to have been a datum; and there has ever since been sharp interest,
suspicion, and intense controversy as to how that presentation came to be made. From this widely reported
episode of high-level decision-making, we learn that a so-called "fact" is always an assumption -- even when the
presenter or reporter of it as a fact may be unaware, or want others to be unaware, that the "fact" was only an
assumption. This reality only becomes crystally clear to us when we have regained balance after having lost it
through reliance upon an assumption that turned out to be painfully untrue. At this point we begin to make use,
with zeal, of the important distinction between a fact and a datum.
Conceptually, we all have choice in the facts we choose to make into a datum for the purposes of practical problem-
solving. But let us be very clear that one would not know this choice existed if we did not know the language
distinction between a fact and a datum. However this might have been in the past for any particular one of us,
henceforth you and I do know this difference (but let's forgive each other if we be forget it!).
In teamwork, a key moment arrives when an important assumption is to be taken as a datum by the team. Ideally,
the input of team members who have insight into the situation to be summarized by the assumption will be the ones
to whom the team will listen. But what if personal judgments have been made by some of the team members of
others? Then there will be mistrust and resentment clouding the team's interactions in reaching for a judgment
concerning the assumption they must make. But in a high-performance team we have course directions to set,
performance goals to negotiate, plans to devise to get there, obstacles to be scaled or removed along the chosen
way, urgent “fires to put out”, and, let us not forget, people to love at home. Communications must therefore be as
efficient as possible without our feeling them to include inaccurate judgments of self-or-other.
Experience in high-performance teams reveals to us that when we make the effort to free our judgments of the
temptation to assume a fact to be a datum, we make our communications significantly more efficient and less judging
-- even if we may temporarily feel as if we are not making much progress. This being so, how can we, when we need
to, “navigate safely yet purposefully and efficiently the turbulent and treacherous Seas of Judgment” concerning the
assumptions we need to make in order to make decisions? Following are some suggestions:
- First, we can lessen judging, especially in the case of people, where judgments very often sow unnecessary
dissension and frequently (but not always) inhibit the flow of energy in productive directions. We can do this
by (a) practising differentiation between facts and data, which requires that we develop our powers of
focused curiosity (see Essay on Curiosity) and (b) remembering that haste makes waste. Often we will
discover that no decision is urgent but an insightful one is important in due course. - Second, we can bring into the present the clarities that begin to emerge when we watch for, and let go of, the
"normal", i.e. conventional, habits of speech and writing by which we so often presume, absent-mindedly,
unverified facts to be reliable data - Third, we can set out to master, not just know about, the process of practical differentiation of datum from fact
- Fourth, we can arrange for suitable venues in which the currents of emotion and mood upon which our own
particular "ship of mind is running" can become conscious, a process that helps us become yet more aware of
vital distinctions between datum and fact (see Essay "Time for a Gnosis?"; and - Fifth, we can -- once we have become truly proficient in the first four self-disciplines, gently help others to gain
in proficiency to "Navigate the Seas of Judgment" too.
Henry Ford is famous for having said and also, I understand, having lived, the adage "Never complain, never
explain". Ford lived about 3 generations ago. So it is relevant to ask today: Are the ways of thinking about the
world that were successful when that dictum of Ford's was popular, which was contemporary with WWI and
the Bolshevik Revolution and whose wisdom only played itself out with the end of the Cold War, likely to be
vitalizing today?
Sooner or later, after we experience a larger world than the one we were accustomed to experience in our family of
origin, we discover that simplicity, desirable as it is, is almost not to be found except at the expense of judging
almost everyone else's thinking as too complex.
Simplicity is not the same as order. There is order in this universe, as is evidenced by the existence of scientific laws
concerning Nature that we find usefully reliable in predicting and manipulating its inanimate elements for our survival
or prosperity. If we want to be able to use scientific laws, we have first to learn what the ones accepted as true
today are. Then we can either apply the latest ones of which we are aware or refine them or propose/prove new
ones.
Likewise, there is order in the histories and narratives (and hopes and fears) of persons, families, organizations, and
communities, and we can find the order in these living entities if we study them without prejudice. Then, when we
have studied them and believe we have seen an order that strikes us as worth noting, to what purpose do we put
what we have found? Well, to justify our existence, many of us behave as if we ought to communicate with each
other so that we can share what we have learned (or observed) of the various orders we have individually, as an
outcome of our different life experiences, studied and think we have verified.
Yet, what if we do not distinguish carefully between our need for order (predictability) and our desires for simplicity
(freedom from mental burden or shortage of time)? Well, in youth we make judgments, and as we age, we learn to
temper our judgments so that they do as little violence as possible to the capacities for self-development, including
affiliation and intellectual growth, of people, and yet are as precise as possible about things. If we grow up being
especially habituated to judging others by virtue of the habits that our families, schools, employments, and
professions entrained in us, then our task in learning to minimize the negative effects of our judgments of both
others and ourselves is commensurately greater.
Toronto, 071204-100408, excerpted from "Rational Presence", to be published in 2010
In problem-solving, we learn to make assumptions. We need to make assumptions in order to employ cause-and-
effect rationality -- the process by which we analyze problems or issues, draw conclusions concerning their nature or
causation, and hopefully devise solutions. Without insightful judgments concerning the assumptions we believe we
must make, the most rational of problem-solving thinking will only mislead us. Indeed our successes as leaders
depend upon the quality of judgments we bring to the making of assumptions concerning the problems we have
been mandated to solve or the goals we have agreed to achieve. As problem-solvers, therefore, we learn to make
temporary assumptions by the application of research and intuitional judgment, and to visit our assumptions again
as we become aware of an actual change in our environment ... or, of our mood. We naturally take pride in our
accomplishments, and ascribe much of our success to the skills in judging we believe we have developed.
In teamwork, we discover that judgments, while necessary at certain times, can all too easily sow dissension and
distrust. In particular, Jill’s judgment of another person, Jack, incurs twin risks: the risk of Jack feeling misunderstood
and/or discounted and the risk of Jill’s thinking about all the situations of which she visualizes Jack a part being
falsely coloured in her mind by the particular hue of her judgment of Jack. Equally, Jack’s judgment of Jill risks sowing
and reaping the seeds of distrust and resentment. Of course the same is true of Jack's judgments of John, or Jill's of
Jane.
Consider now a hypothetical judgment that Jack makes of Jill, and also one that Jill makes of Jack. Suppose that Jack
judges Jill “to be emotional”, and that Jill judges Jack “to be insensitive”. Are these reliable judgments? Are either
based on data? Or are they only inferences of some convenience to the point each desires others to accept as true
of the other? And can Jack and Jill rise above any negative implications in the other's judgments of him/her to treat
such observations as potentially helpful feedback, rather than as causes for taking offence?
Judgments such as these occur often in organizations. As supervisors, leaders, and family members, we must solve
problems as members of teams that must be productive in a larger setting. How can we refine the quality of judging
skills we have honed to solve problems so that, rather than sowing resentment and mistrust in our team, we arrive
at working assumptions that facilitate co-operation in the growth of true insight and productivity? Before we discuss
this question, let us first examine some opinions of financial analysts concerning the effect of a strong culture, which
everyone agrees facilitates rapid decision-making:
effect rationality -- the process by which we analyze problems or issues, draw conclusions concerning their nature or
causation, and hopefully devise solutions. Without insightful judgments concerning the assumptions we believe we
must make, the most rational of problem-solving thinking will only mislead us. Indeed our successes as leaders
depend upon the quality of judgments we bring to the making of assumptions concerning the problems we have
been mandated to solve or the goals we have agreed to achieve. As problem-solvers, therefore, we learn to make
temporary assumptions by the application of research and intuitional judgment, and to visit our assumptions again
as we become aware of an actual change in our environment ... or, of our mood. We naturally take pride in our
accomplishments, and ascribe much of our success to the skills in judging we believe we have developed.
In teamwork, we discover that judgments, while necessary at certain times, can all too easily sow dissension and
distrust. In particular, Jill’s judgment of another person, Jack, incurs twin risks: the risk of Jack feeling misunderstood
and/or discounted and the risk of Jill’s thinking about all the situations of which she visualizes Jack a part being
falsely coloured in her mind by the particular hue of her judgment of Jack. Equally, Jack’s judgment of Jill risks sowing
and reaping the seeds of distrust and resentment. Of course the same is true of Jack's judgments of John, or Jill's of
Jane.
Consider now a hypothetical judgment that Jack makes of Jill, and also one that Jill makes of Jack. Suppose that Jack
judges Jill “to be emotional”, and that Jill judges Jack “to be insensitive”. Are these reliable judgments? Are either
based on data? Or are they only inferences of some convenience to the point each desires others to accept as true
of the other? And can Jack and Jill rise above any negative implications in the other's judgments of him/her to treat
such observations as potentially helpful feedback, rather than as causes for taking offence?
Judgments such as these occur often in organizations. As supervisors, leaders, and family members, we must solve
problems as members of teams that must be productive in a larger setting. How can we refine the quality of judging
skills we have honed to solve problems so that, rather than sowing resentment and mistrust in our team, we arrive
at working assumptions that facilitate co-operation in the growth of true insight and productivity? Before we discuss
this question, let us first examine some opinions of financial analysts concerning the effect of a strong culture, which
everyone agrees facilitates rapid decision-making:
| Reading Material Sample |
| Services to Leaders Coaching Essay: Refining Judgments |
| Navigating the Seas of Judgment: Damned if you judge, or damned if you don’t? (c) 2007-8 by Angus Cunningham President, Authentix Coaches angusc@authentixcoaches.com |
When we make a judgment, we are hopefully reaching for a solution either to something
that is problematic for our family, organization, or community or to something that is
bothering us personally. Sometimes, however, what appears to be a judgment to others
is more accurately described as a reaction, a behaviour that occurs so quickly that it
occurred virtually without deliberation.
Sometimes, such behaviours are extremely productive. Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink!"
describes how we often find that our first impressions prove later to be extraordinarily
insightful, and this phenomenon, when we later reflect on a happy occurrence of it,
encourages us to trust our "gut instincts". But judgments based on first impressions do
not always lead to productive outcomes. Have you noticed that others' judgments
concerning your intentions are not infrequently grossly incorrect? Perhaps the same may
sometimes be true of your judgments of others' intentions?
One of life’s most painful experiences is to be caught having made a snap judgment of
another that one thought arose from an instance of superb insight, only later to learn that
one's judgment had been significantly biased, and therefore both unfair and unwise. In
my case I can think of quite a few judgments I made and acted upon that at least one of
my parents, or a boss, warned me against. In those moments of judging, I certainly had
some notion that my judgment was sound at the time. Yet in retrospect I have to
acknowledge that my judgments then would have been more accurately described as only
illogical, unreasonable, irrational, or downright insane.
that is problematic for our family, organization, or community or to something that is
bothering us personally. Sometimes, however, what appears to be a judgment to others
is more accurately described as a reaction, a behaviour that occurs so quickly that it
occurred virtually without deliberation.
Sometimes, such behaviours are extremely productive. Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink!"
describes how we often find that our first impressions prove later to be extraordinarily
insightful, and this phenomenon, when we later reflect on a happy occurrence of it,
encourages us to trust our "gut instincts". But judgments based on first impressions do
not always lead to productive outcomes. Have you noticed that others' judgments
concerning your intentions are not infrequently grossly incorrect? Perhaps the same may
sometimes be true of your judgments of others' intentions?
One of life’s most painful experiences is to be caught having made a snap judgment of
another that one thought arose from an instance of superb insight, only later to learn that
one's judgment had been significantly biased, and therefore both unfair and unwise. In
my case I can think of quite a few judgments I made and acted upon that at least one of
my parents, or a boss, warned me against. In those moments of judging, I certainly had
some notion that my judgment was sound at the time. Yet in retrospect I have to
acknowledge that my judgments then would have been more accurately described as only
illogical, unreasonable, irrational, or downright insane.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Source Data - "Corporate Culture & Performance" © 1992 by Kotter & Heskett
Analysis - Authentix Coaches
Analysis - Authentix Coaches
Source Data - "Corporate Culture & Performance" © 1992 by Kotter & Heskett
Analysis - Authentix Coaches
Analysis - Authentix Coaches
| Latest Revision: 100408 |
