So just how “open” is open data? A recent article by David Eaves in Slate entitled “Lies, Damned Lies and Open Data” nicely summarizes one of the emerging challenges that face advocates of “open data.” (For those unfamiliar with the term, the open data movement urges government to make information available through “open data portals that share . . information like budgets, product recalls, factory pollution levels, and crime data” […]
OK, so context is important. But to focus on “everything” is to focus on nothing. Without some sort of filter to determine what’s significant, the world, to quote William James, is a “great, buzzing confusion.” Eventually you must decide which contextual elements are most important with respect to achieving your organization’s mission. So how to prioritize? Well, the philosophy of science tells us that we have a couple of choices. We could start with some a priori assumptions about what makes for effective leadership. Approaching the problem this way means that you rigidly apply those Seven Habits or Six Sigma or One-Minute or Four-Hour principles to every situation, because those are the fixed principles you must accept as valid in every situation and for every leader. […]
I’ve got a dirty little secret to share with you today. Buried deep inside the guts of far too many popular books on leadership, lies a seductive premise. It’s a premise that sells a lot of books, and it goes something like this: “This books contains Ingredient X, the secret to success as a leader in all circumstances and settings. If only you master the art of X, and perform it rigorously in all situations you face as a leader, then you will succeed.” So X is whatever the author claims to be the secret of success as a leader. Just master that key perspective or skill and make sure that you rigorously apply it to every situation. Be consistent in practicing these enumerated habits or those leadership secrets of Abraham Lincoln/ Jesus Christ/ Attila the Hun and you will be the effective leader you aspire to become. […]
The value proposition for this blog is unassuming but profound (in our humble collective opinion). Indeed, my TrueBearing colleagues and I stake our intellectual and pragmatic passion on four interlocking principles of organizational leadership and decision-making that we refer to as The Four Degrees of Freedom. The Four Degrees are important touchstones in our work as evaluators. Without further ado, here they are: The Four Degrees of Freedom • Context is king. • It’s always a good time for a gut check. • Data rules. • Bring it. Tweak it. Repeat. In the next several posts we’ll explore what the Four Degrees are and why they are so urgently needed in today’s work environment. Let’s start by looking at where the term “four degrees of freedom” came from. […]
Back to the question with which I opened the first post: does the world need another evaluation blog? As one of my professors used to say when one of his assertions met an annoying challenge: “Well now, that is an empirical question.” Well, as evaluators we are hardcore empiricists, so that works for us. We’re less interested in abstraction and idealism than in what works. Evaluators get to be up-close-and-personal witnesses to some of the best and worst practices in management. Too often, it is not a pretty picture. So, we see a need for a viewpoint that integrates evaluation with sound, realistic leadership principles. You see, all those books and blogs on leadership abound with advice. Some of it is useful, and some of it is frankly appalling. But in nearly every case, contemporary approaches to leadership zero in on one—and only one– of three basic premises: […]
Technorati estimates that the Internet hosted no fewer than 112.8 million blogs in 2011. Wow. Let that number sink in. That’s a whole lot of bloggery! It pencils out to one blog for every 63 people on the face of the planet. […]
