Subjectivity....is it a "dirty" word?

As we grow in our professional and professional lives, one phrase that seems to  crop up often in either philosophical or analytical conversations....."being objective". This phrase has become a reference point to keep emotions in check that can help keep discussions amiable and non-threatening, being neutral, unbiased, fair etc. I suppose the term implies that we look at situations and events dispassionately, without being colored by opinion, beliefs, feelings or bias,  so that we can weigh all the facts to the extent they deserve before making any conclusion.

Objectivity is related to facts, truth and data, in many cases the latter tending to be numerical figures. And these are indeed extremely important. Hence, when we are about to make decisions on projects, or concluding our judgments or situations, we generally scan all available data, numbers, charts, figures, information etc. to help us arrive at logical and rational judgments. 

Let's pause for a moment here; if this is true (assuming that all the available data and logic are wholesome and completely sufficient for a decision) then can a "super-computerized" robot not arrive at the same conclusion, given the algorithms of all the logic  and with all the data feed?  Objectivity, we therefore assume, leads to a conclusion which reflects that fairness and justice have been applied to the judgment.  Metrics, the ultimate buzzword in performance management or any other corporate evaluation of any situation or project, brings to the table all the quantitative measures that are measurable. Even qualitative elements are converted to rating scales, anchoring  behaviors or other semi or non-quantifiable elements to numerical rating scales, including extents of our own agreement or disagreement to a point of view. Hence if all the data, metrics and algorithms fall in place, theoretically speaking, a  "super-formula" with relatable "sub-formulae" can be derived which can then be used for assessments in most situations....where the output of the computation can be churned out by a robotic machine! Or can it....?

What, then is the value-add that a human being brings to the table ? Why do we need managers and leaders?

Think about this...

If you could build a new business that depended exclusively on reliability, dependability and on-time fulfillment of the customer need, and

• if the employees always delivered the product and/or service to the customer, meeting all the specifications of quality and cost without any problems, on-time and every single time on their own
• if they never fell sick, never absented themselves and were always productive to the maximum measurable extent every single day
• if the rest of the world remained static and the business was never challenged by any competition of any kind
• and if the customer's needs or expectations never changed in terms of the design, utility or quality of the product or service

you wouldn't probably need any managers or leaders for such a business!

Thus, I suppose one needs the dimension of qualitative judgment, because most of us know business realities today. Which is why you need managers and leaders in the business, who are human beings by themselves first. And where there are humans, there is subjectivity. 

There is some opinion going around in some circles that decision-making, after all the dissections and analysis of a situation, ultimately flows from feelings, which may be just a fleeting in a microsecond in time when the decision is made in the mind. Those feelings which can build up over time or appear in split-seconds are subjective, and they gives us the cognitive sense of right or wrong, positive or negative, good or bad, beauty or ugliness, joy or unhappiness, at the point of decision-making. 

We often here complaints about decisions made, especially during performance appraisals, that decisions made were "subjective". Indeed they could be. Compensation decisions post appraisals or during recruitment situations are also accused of subjectivity, implying that it is an evil which we have to live with. This is a debate that can be stretched till the cows come home.

The point is that subjectivity is here to stay.  It is probably less essential  and less desirable than objectivity. But it could certainly be required at least to serve as a source of differentiation, if not anything else. Subjectivity is a consequence of the extreme variation in human belief systems. If we want to eliminate subjectivity, we need to abolish the diversity of beliefs. Is that goal humanly possible? Or even desirable? I guess not. If all human beings on this planet were rational and objective to the same extent,with identical beliefs, we would be a robotic civilization, somewhat like the proverbial vulcan, "Mr.Spock", from the famous TV serial, Star Trek. I do agree that there should be more objectivity than subjectivity applied to the judgment or decision in any situation - objectivity first and foremost, and for the largest part, but in the end, the conclusion can be anchored with an appropriate dose of subjectivity.  What exactly is "appropriate" in this context? The answer to that question is itself ...., well,.....subjective!

I wonder if you found my above article thought-provoking....that could be an objectively subjective decision that you may  need to make!