When being Steve Kornacki isn’t enough

[This may be obvious… but this isn’t about any particular candidate’s win, loss, success, or failure… this is about the (necessary) role of data in defining company direction]

I was watching the election coverage last night and like many was drawn in by Steve Kornacki’s handle on the specifics of every county and city necessary to achieve results for different individuals. It was fascinating, enthralling, and made raw numbers something that any election watcher would find interesting. Then you’d see him (or another channel’s similar personality) try to explain the reasons for these numbers… followed by the would’a, should’a, could’a of different individuals drawing from there. We are often tempted to do the same in our own businesses… we look at the numbers and if I could… just… understand them enough, I’d be able to make the right choices. We like to explain a win or a loss by that one thing, but often it’s a collection of things, a feeling, or even a vision that was defined. You’ll hear the election talking-heads explain about this issue or the next, but again, sometimes it isn’t that simple. Now, in response, you see… if we just change this, or if we just keep this, we’ll be in power forever. Again, easy for us to think about it this way in the context of our businesses too… if we just change our pricing, or if we just market this way, or we just add this role… it will all work out because that is what the data tell us about the past.

As I’ve worked with companies on their tech strategies the most important single thing has been to align the tech strategy with the mission of their business. This isn’t a new statement from me and you’ve heard it before, even last week. What I want to stress this week is that the difference between explaining the results and defining a strategy is stark. I’ve heard others talk about this, such as Brian Evergreen, in his article about “is it unscientific to be data-driven“. To expound on that idea, but even take it further, we can and should be able to explain what happened and what the influencers were to get there. That shouldn’t, however, distract us from setting a clear vision of who we are, where we are going, and what our unique value proposition is. We can see what caused us to win, or lose, and say, “these factors should be part of our company, or platform”, but what might be the case is that rather than trying to be “all things to all people”, you instead need to be clear about who you actually are. What is the future you are leading toward?

The biggest difference between companies I’ve seen succeed vs. stall-out over the last couple years have been those that focus on setting a forward vision that is big enough for the company to get behind and clear enough to convey to the market. These companies are serious about what the future of every employee is and also know the unique vision of our products that make them the comparison for all others to follow. They are customer-obsessed, but not afraid to challenge those same customers with a different go-to-market. They are focused on relentless financial performance, but not myopic about how they got there. They build toward an intentional future and keep the foot on the gas.

So, is there anything wrong with being the Steve Kornacki in your organization who can explain all the reasons why you made, or didn’t make your number? Absolutely not. For example, let’s say your goal is to be the World’s Best Banana Company… what might the polls tell us about our results?

1. We achieved high results in certain demographics
2. We have higher purchases in X locations
3. We had more purchases at X times of the year
4. We might know about the important priorities of the demographics, location, or timeframe
5. What is the influence of quality on our decision
6. Do people want a banana, or are they just trying to prevent cramps in a triathlon 😉

So, all of this is great input. We can take data and react to it. However, my stress is… don’t just take data and react incrementally. Decide where and how you want the company to look in the future and then understand which of these elements align to it. For instance, if my goal is to be the World’s Best Banana Company… what are we doing to define the meaning of best? How are we creating a strategy that we are walking the whole company toward and is mission-driven, not just data-driven. The data should support the mission, the mission should be informed by the data and measured by the data.

So, to close this, a final point… your technology transformations will succeed when they have aspirational goals, can be measured and adjusted based on data, and are open to strategic pivots based on tests. The best companies position themselves with lines-in-the-water that reflect a radical attempt to achieve something special. I’ve recently been watching old clips of Jeff Bezos in his old office talking about Amazon. All the data in the world would have said, “this is failing”, “you’re losing a ton of money”, “your customers don’t want to buy through the internet”, “your customers don’t even know what the internet is”… but he persisted and it is one of the most valuable companies of all time. They did this by being radically customer focused, spending money on things that supported the mission, and now can afford to experiment here and there. The same is true for the transformation of Microsoft achieved by Satya Nadella. He was unafraid to paint a new future for where the company could go and it stood in sharp contrast to what had been done in the past. A company that had barely achieved growth and was tied down by legacy products became the most admired company in the world. Do both of these leaders use data? You bet they do… but they started with vision and a bold one at that. Do the same.

Nathan Lasnoski