I'm a big statistics guy when it comes to sports. As a function of helping to keep things in proper context, and if interpreted properly, stats are useful if not important. However, stats should not be the only factor to rely upon. It does have its limits. I'm also a firm believer in objectives - in moderation. The means do not necessarily justify the ends. Too often we see in an office, if not society at large, where the doctrine of Social Darwinism 21st century style prevails.
Standing alone, when one really ponders it, stats do not consider many things outside the realm of numbers. Maybe it helps in judging the quality of an athlete measured against his peers, thus determining if he belongs in the Hall of Fame. However, it doesn't consider the character of an athlete. It doesn't remotely suggest how a player arrives to achieve his stats. In a sense, one can read history and never get a sense of it. History is about people who make the events. My point is that stats are just one step in a multiple-step process in comprehending the totality of a club or athlete. 'The stats say" or "look at the stats" are just for those who want to get across a single, self-serving point.
In the business world stats are known as objectives. Every employee has them. "These are your targets; now go forth and multiply!” so says the manager. The funny thing about objectives is that they’re very similar to statistics.
The star of the office is always the best salesperson. Why? Well, they meet their objectives. Just like a 50-goals scorer, or a QB who throws for over 25 TD's or a .300 hitter in baseball, it's a measure to stand alone and top your peers. Setting standards and goals are an important element in attaining excellence. Objectives are good, but when management, as I have witnessed too often, treats the numbers as a means to an end, it should bring into question the quality and competence of management itself.
Article comments