PERSPECTIVES IN FOCUS
Courtney Michener Miller
Did you look at this title for a moment and question whether “has” should replace the word “have?” At first glance, I did and so did my spell check.
It was written as a subtitle in a book, and I analyzed the structure of the sentence for completeness, questioned the grammar and my analytical muscles had to research for accuracy. I wanted to know what was right and what was wrong.
It turns out that in modern English, both data “has no” and data “have no” can be grammatically correct, depending on context. While data is technically the plural form of “datum,” it’s often treated as a singular, mass noun especially in informal contexts. Both were right!
This was the rabbit hole four simple words took me down. Imagine me and a graph with data! Imagine a boardroom full of individuals who would go through this exercise in their own form and debate before the presentation even started. If you’ve been tasked with presenting data in your career, these words are resonating.
Before I even got past the first subtitle, the content of the book, Data Driven Dialogue - A Facilitators Guide to Collaborative Inquiry, was proven by my behavior. Data is all around, and leading data-driven conversations gathered in the complex living organism that is the organization you work in can be challenging. Data is often either ignited or sequestered, through the power of our infinite human perspectives. The book argues that it is also enabled by our ability to deploy the strategy of collaborative inquiry.
I’m always delighted when my educational roots in teaching, learning and curriculum design prove themselves directly translatable to the business world. This book is straight from the world of educational research, as is the term collaborative inquiry.
I had just left a thought-provoking conversation with my learning team as we began to see new data sets come in from the AstraZeneca Sales Excellence Academy. How will we present this data effectively? How do we work with our business leaders to interpret and action plan systemically?
Big, wonderful questions. Nothing in the realm of possibility for one size fits all answers. We were going to need to build a new capability muscle, not in our ability to read or garner the data any longer, but instead in our ability to facilitate data-driven conversations with our business stakeholders.
I began having flashbacks of a recent meeting where a team had been charged with analyzing complex performance data, which was done via clear tables and graphs that were accurate, comprehensive and clearly displayed. Yet, as the meeting progressed, the presenter was interrupted to explain why the data didn’t tell the whole story, which parts couldn’t possibly be true and how the positive effects of the efforts already taken hadn’t been reflected. What was intended as a data-focused session dissolved into defensiveness, denial and distracting peripheral comments.
What I saw in this example, which is not uncommon, is that the art of data-based planning, problem-solving and decision-making is halted by data’s ability to distract when the purposes for engaging with it are not clear. Group review of data may stir up tensions where dearly held practices may be challenged as no longer effective. It has become clear that productive data conversations and teams don’t happen by chance.
They will happen when we take the time to learn and develop the skills for facilitating powerful collaborative inquiry with deliberate planning, practice and reflection. Our learning team will take on this challenge. Join us.
And so, does data have no meaning? Data is simply information at a point in time. Individuals, groups and artificial intelligence create meaning by organizing and analyzing data. Interpretation is subjective; data is objective. Frames of reference influence the meaning we drive from the data we collect and select. Meaning is imposed through interpretation. Meaning is defined in and by relationship.
An example in the book shows that even a word — up, down, large, small, close, far — can only be defined contextually. A 5’11" individual is short if he or she is a member of a professional basketball team. Arguments, commence.
As human beings, we are meaning-making organisms. We are part of organizations where knowledge is socially constructed and individually integrated. We require frames of reference, important questions and collaborative inquiry.
As learning leaders, let’s work to master the art of facilitating collaborative inquiry methodology as a cyclical process of system change to plan, act, observe and reflect. There are no quick fixes. This is not easy work, but worthwhile. There is only continuous growth in our businesses and in the practice arenas we create as learning teams, we hold the data and privilege of leading the way.
Peter Senge reminded us, “At its essence, every organization is a product of how its members think and interact.”
Let’s continue to create spaces for interaction and thinking with intention. Let us do so in our meaningful work in this #OneBeautifulLife in our data-driven conversations too, with the strategy of collaborative inquiry for our businesses, our patients and each other.
We are the ones who create the meaning.
Courtney Michener Miller is head of commercial learning for AstraZeneca and a member of the LTEN Board of Directors. Email her at courtney.michener@astrazeneca.com or connect through linkedin.com/in/courtneymichenermiller.
