Tape, Chicken & Data Honesty.

To become a strategist that moves with the sway of the room seems unnatural. 

To research and study data habits without the ability to imagine based on the true nature of data seems ungrounded. A strategist doesn’t always need to go against the grain of the room, but should have the ability to speak honestly to their data-set, without criticism for delivering less than desirable results.

So how much is too much? How strongly does a strategist push a data agenda without coming off as aggressive to the data requestor? There’s a fine line between data bluntness and data passion. Providing constructive analysis to others often requires more of the former, than the later.

The truth of data will eventually reveal itself through data success and losses, performance reviews, inaccurate data projections, etc. There’s no point of delivering a report with faulty conclusions or fluff—holding little weight to the data landscape at hand. The effects of implementing biased conclusions not only extinguish a strategist’s credibility, but have long-term effects on strategic direction following research.

Being completely honest in reporting, although a straight-forward concept, isn’t always easy. Receiving data from a strategist reporting ‘less than favorable results’ can conclude in meetings containing high stress, heated disagreements and pleading persuasions for the strategist to provide ‘more favorable’ data.

HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY

My data guides up until this point were/are extremely factual strategists. Minds who are willing to rip apart each and every detail of a data-set until it’s tearfully/painfully accurate and/or representative. Natural Perfectionists. To be clear—these individuals are intolerant of error, unless its standard error. After putting in the work to ensure accuracy, why would you desire to deliver anything other than the truth? What could a strategy possibly gain from falsehood?

Honesty is to be expected. In the world of data, the application of biased data conclusions cost time, misdirection and category losses. With this understanding, comes a personality of intolerance toward anything less than honesty. Persuasion from a requestor for a strategist to develop ‘more favorable’ data results will not hide the truth of a data set. Further analysis can be developed, a new report may be requested, but compiling false conclusions to ‘save face’, reduces the validity of a strategist’s data-set evaluation.

Bring your thick skin to the table. Analysts and strategists often walk a fine line during data delivery—occasionally developing controversy and opposition toward data received from the requestor(s). As a ‘data mediator’, thick skin becomes a necessary requirement to successfully navigate presentations of data deliverables. Defending data honestly, is a necessity in outlining actionable data paths for strategic continuation and/or directional change. 

Tough reports or negative data can be delivered honestly with complete freedom if clear outlines of data sources and collection methods, are provided. It’s easy to put up a wall once requestors begin to challenge your report. In these instances, offer strategic short and long-term strategies to elevate data quarrels. Create an environment fostering collective collaboration—building a solid foundation for conversation surrounding ill-received data results.

A strategist who has taken enough mental hits and data bruises, will address the need for data honesty with ease. Honesty works as an added data delivery strength when paired with accurate data description. Prioritize and set conversational boundaries appropriately—to neutralize data rooms that would otherwise contain biased thoughts and misguided data direction.

Don’t Chicken.

The Data Minimalist.