Critical reading, of charts

Here's a very good look from the Harvard Business Review (free after registration) at how different presentations of data can reflect different interpretations. It's another reminder of how important critical thinking and skepticism are to data you are given. As author Jake Porway states:

The most troubling part of all this is that "we the people" rarely have the skills to see how data is being twisted into each of these visualizations. We tend to treat data as "truth," as if it is immutable and only has one perspective to present. If someone uses data in a visualization, we are inclined to believe it. This myopia is not unlike imagining the red velvet cake we see in front of us to be the only thing that could have been created from the eggs and milk we mixed together to make it. We don't see in the finished product the many transformations and manipulations of the data that were involved, along with their inherent social, political, and technological biases.

Harvard Business Review on measuring impact

Here's a a link to a thoughtful piece by Alnoor Ebrahim in the Harvard Business Review called "Let's Be Realistic about Measuring Impact." It compares the measurement processes of three different organizations, each of which uses a different approach. One measures outputs, another measures short-term outcomes and estimates long-term outcomes, while the third thinks hard - and waits for - long-term outcomes. Each uses some form of proxy measures when necessary. Each organization puts the resources necessary into making its measurements meaningful. And they've figured out a way to get around, where necessary, their research limitations. Says Ebrahim:

Notice that none of these three organizations typically measures impact directly. They hypothesize what the outcomes and impacts might be but only in some instances are they able to follow through by commissioning their own research or multi-year evaluations. And these are sophisticated funders and investors who are much better positioned to measure long-term results than the front line organizations that contend with funding shortages and operational challenges every day.

I've written before about the importance of using outcome measures. It's hard to do well, but well worth the effort. Has your organization tried? What were the problem areas? What worked well?

Managing your day

From the Harvard Business Review blog, here are a couple of useful columns. The first, by Peter Bregman, is called "Two Lists You Should Look at Every Morning." Bregman argues that you need to know what you need to work on - he calls it The Focus List. And that you need to know what distracts you - The Ignore List. Or, if you will, the what you can let slide list. There's more, so click through to the full article.

The second, "Your Body Language Speaks for You in Meetings," by Charalambos Vlachoutsicos, is more about governing ourselves. Boss, underlings, students, teacher - we all have body language, and we all respond to that of others. Vlachoutsicos offers a check list for before meeting preparation - make sure you're not hungry or thirsty, go to the bathroom, and figure out your emotional temperature. He offers additional suggestions for during the meeting. Again, you'll have to click through to see what they are - it's worth it.

The ironclad Monitor and social impact bonds

There's a lot of interest in my earlier post about social impact bonds, and I'll be keeping an eye on the topic and providing updates. In the meantime, here's a link to an interesting column from the Harvard Business Review blog (free when you register) pointing out the special funding arrangements required of the designer of the ironclad ship the Monitor because of:

how challenging the Monitor was to the Navy establishment when its inventor John Ericsson and his partner Cornelius Bushnell asked them to approve its design: not only was it "ironclad" unlike the wooden ships of the era, it sailed almost wholly submerged, with only its strange gun turret cresting the waves.
Here's the key passage for our purposes:

Only after more deft politicking by Mr. Bushnell and more explanations from Mr. Ericsson did the board approve it, and only then with special conditions protecting the Navy. It doled out the $275,000 cost in installment payments, and made them all conditional on the Monitor proving itself in a "test"—meaning an actual battle with the enemy.

The authors speculate as to why a funding method that was used during the Civil War was not used much in the interim but has become a creative tool now.

Arguably, today's public sector has become so generally risk-averse that an arrangement designed for an extreme risk situation —dire military threat, drained war chest, dodgy inventor — now is needed for even the surest bets. Meanwhile, perhaps the ranks (and wallets) of socially-minded investors have swelled so dramatically that it's much easier to round up private capital to take flyers on potential game-changers.

Maybe the explanation is somewhat simpler, having to do with large salaries and low taxes. It's a provocative question in any case, and adds a little more color to an interesting picture.