A primer on Objectivity

(FIrst Published in People Matters)

It is not uncommon to hear the debate and discussion around what is ‘objective’ and what is ‘subjective’ at workplace. Many a meeting room discussions have this proverbial elephant in the meeting room that no one is willing to call out – the other persons view is subjective while mine is objective. Usually the debates (ranging from the sublime subjects of strategy to the mundane subjects of processes) are mystifying and frustrating in equal measures – and not surprisingly despite all attempts of a ‘a team being collectively able to achieve objective decisions even when individuals involved have their own subjective baggage’s’’, many if not all decisions reek of an abject lack of objectivity.

I decided to dig deeper into the world of ‘objectivity’ – what does it really mean, how does this abstract word lands in reality, how has this question been understood so far, what are its nuances and finally is it even possible to be completely objective. Here is a short primer basis that research.

The ability to be objective is a holy grail – all humans aspire for it; higher ups in all kinds of hierarchy have a strong belief that they are objective, which is highly disputed by the lower downs and finally no one really know how does pure objectivity really looks like.

Human beings have always believed that there are some things that make them different from all other animal species particularly on the basis of their innate abilities to understand and practice rationality, consciousness, free will, morality et al. However recent studies have found these not really to be exclusive to human beings; many other species are shown to be equally capable in demonstrating them in their context. However no experiment or observation so far has claimed that anyone else but us are capable of being objective. We seem to have the sole copyright over it -even though most may not really know the concept deeply apart from a loose and colloquial understanding of the word.

“Objectivity requires us to stand back from our perceptions, beliefs and opinions and to reflect on them, subject them to a particular kind of scrutiny - and above all it requires a degree of indifference in judging that may conflict with our won needs and desires”

It appears that there are three aspects/types of objectivity – call it three layers that form the world of objectivity.

The first and the most common one – ‘an objective judgement/opinion is a one that is free of prejudice and bias’. The Second one – ‘a judgement which is free of all assumption and values’. On the face of it, this looks like an extension of the first – but is more nuanced. Who is to say what is a value/assumption and what is a prejudice?

Let’s illustrate this with an example. If one were to reject overtly someone in an interview, who belongs to a particular colour or background or gender only because of these characteristics, it’s a clear and rabid case of prejudice. However if one were to chose for a role say someone with only a particular type of educational background or gender in the name of ‘fitment’ it is very difficult to be sure if that is fair assessment of capability or just an ‘assumption’ that is colouring the decision. The gradation is subtle, gradual and difficult to discern. A lot of prejudice passes off as ‘logical’ assumption.

The third notion of objectivity is focussed directly on how we arrive at our views or theories. Whereas the first two describe a particular state of mind – to which we must aspire if we want to be objective, this third notion dictates that procedures of particular kind must be in place and must be followed if we want to be objective. 

Let us again understand that with an example – choosing a candidate on the basis of a pre decided competency framework and that framework alone, where the person administering the framework does not allow his own preferences overpower the framework. (Howsoever difficult it might be to do so

The fourth understanding of objectivity is to move away from the negative definitions (as above – removal of prejudice, bias and assumptions) to a more positive one – i.e. something’s that leads us to a more accurate representation of reality/truth. The former may or may not lead us to truth – the latter will take us to truth.

This part of understanding objectivity is very critical. What is the purpose of being objective really? Philosophers argue that the real and the only purpose of being objective is to ‘ascertain the truth – the absolute truth’.

A lot of leadership literature and development programs today focuses on understanding of the self – with the hope that the participant is able to uncover the instances and sources of his/her own biases and prejudices and in the process of becoming aware of them, the hope is that they shall cure themselves of the burdens of taking a biased decisions. The scholars of objectivity are pointing out the imperfection in this hypothesis – removal of biases (assuming such developmental programs are indeed able to do that) is a good first step, a necessary condition; but it is not sufficient condition to become objective. The final step to become objective and be able to take objective decisions is an ‘active search for truth’. How do we get there?

At corporate workplace we face an important problem in our own cultures aspirations to be objective. The so called ‘modern and scientific’ understanding of issues has often confused the pursuit of objectivity with its cousins. Everyone believes himself to be objective or his opinions to be objective and rational; a social and corporate prestige is attached to be ‘known and perceived’ to be objective. It has become the be all and end all of all discourse.

The pre eminence of objectivity as a goal has resulted in other values masquerading as it, despite their having no relations to it, and in fact serving to usurp genuine objective judgements. A case in point in the modern workplace what is often referred to as ‘’number crunching; the reduction of decision making to quantification and measurement. An example of this is a fallacy is the email signature I often find – ‘what cannot be measured cannot be improved’

Scholars of objectivity understand the limitations of Quantification a little too well  i.e. translation of statements or results into a numerical or other quantitative form for examples as graphs and tables has become so prevalent that is has been taken by many to be what it means to be scientific and objective. Disciplines and practitioners take the route of (only) quantification in the hope that it will guarantee them objectivity.  

An example might help to illustrate the point. The political commentator Simon Jenkins in his book ‘Thatcher and Sons’ describes a situation of how sometimes mindless quantification makes you miss the woods for the trees. In the heavily government managed British National Health Service where every small action was being quantified (so that it can then be measured and improved) – for example waiting lists, appointments, referrals, lengths of stay, operation incidents, mortality etc etc. With this massive quantification it was reported that 99.89% of patients had been able to get an appointment with their GP within 48 hours as a result f new procedures. This was however achieved because the GPs started to refuse to give appointments beyond 48 hours. Behaviour changed to suit the measurement norms rather than solving the problem. However the project claimed success.

It is clear that there are significant dangers in allowing quantitifaction to replace judgement, allowing it to usurp the title of objectivity from a properly considered disinterested opinion given by someone with the relevant experience and skills. This does not mean that quantification has no part to play in decision making but the danger is when we believe quantitification will replace judgement.

At the end of a bit of research and reading on this subject, I am no closer to being really and truly objective. However I understand the subject more clearly and deeply. Second I shall be very hesitant to claim ‘objectivity’ in my opinions and decisions. I guess that is a good first step.