One of the great debates in business is the value of quantitative research compared to what a manager sees or feels. There is always a strong natural bias between personal perception and intuition. We believe what we can see hear and “know” to be true – no matter how accurate or inaccurate our senses actually are. Meanwhile, stats show us the world in black and white. The numbers are there and typically presented as cold hard facts. However, is this accurate? Are they often not just as susceptible to the biases or potential errors that may affect our senses?

With regards to our senses, or guts, the best managers always seem to have a knack for seeing things that may skip past other managers. They have the talent to recognize opportunities when they emerge or problems before they get out hand. It is not based on ESP, but it is based on combining their knowledge and experience with what they currently perceive in their business. At the same time, the best managers are careful not to follow their perceptions too far. Consistently making decisions based upon feelings without reliable to data to back them up is a recipe for outright disaster.

Statistics and numbers, meanwhile, often enjoy the reputation of being free from bias or error. In reality, this could not be farther from the truth. Statistics are often compiled to arbitrary decisions made by the taker – for example, where to set cutoff points, where to accumulate the sample, what stats to provide and how in-depth to make the report, etc, etc, etc. This does not even take into account that the person using the stats may not be using the best or most appropriate data to answer the question he is researching. Would a national poll regarding the public’s attitude towards a rodeo based restaurant chain be appropriate for a businessman looking to open such a franchise in Texas? There is still a great amount of critical thought necessary in determining how to accumulate statistical research and what data to observe after the fact.

This is why the absolute best managers and decision makers use a combination of sense, intelligence, and statistically-based evidence to make all of their most important decisions. If the eye test were good enough for decision making, there would be no need for professional athletic teams to employ teams of statisticians to combine with their scouting units. If stats alone told the entire story, a popular soft drink brand would not have created a massive blunder in the mid-1980s and changed its formula – a new formula that data indicated was more popular amongst the soda drinking public – only to have to embarrassingly change it back a short period of time later. However, it goes far beyond just using these two decision making aspects in conjunction. It is about filtering the right information. That is why humans will always be part of the decision making loop and never just completely at the whim of a machine. The most talented professionals will always be needed to determine what data is the most important and how filter or weight various data and feelings in the course of reaching a final verdict.

Author Bio: By Felix Chesterfield; For more information on this topic, or many others such as Syndicated Research, please contact the author, or a group of Market Research Consultants. Thank you for reading.

Category: Marketing
Keywords: Statistical research, syndicated research, market research consultants