A case against “Anal”ysts of all kinds

This time of year features the conclusion of our football season.  The pros are in the midst of their playoff routine.  While college just wrapped up its Mythical National Championship dance.  The two upsets yesterday in the NFL remind us of one of the attractions to athletics in the first place.  Athletics is the one place where the game has a defined beginning and end.  There are rules that are followed and closely monitored.  While there are sometimes bad calls, most would agree that every attempt is made to follow and honor the rules.  In the end, time runs out and, based on the final score, there is an established winner.  The exciting part is that because this game is actually played, there is continually an opportunity for the underdog to upset the favorite.  While it is sometimes painful for the fans of the favorite, there exists this American tradition of rooting for the underdog.  And, when the underdog wins, it provides a moment of extra exhilaration for all who observed the accomplishment.

Contrast determining the best team in the pros to the college version of declaring the best team.  College football shies away from direct competition.  In college football, some of the combatants never have to play any of the other capable opponents.  In college football, they use intricate mathematical models, computer programs, and a collection of “experts”, call them ‘anal’ysts to determine who are the better teams.  Ultimately, it’s the results of the ‘anal’ysts that decide which teams are better than others.  Instead of playing the game, giving the underdogs a chance, these  ‘anal’ysts take the competition, the risk, and the chance out of the game.

How does this relate to business?  Simple. For the past twenty years stock price, stock value, share value, and unlimited ‘anal’yst commentary defined what companies were attractive or competitively viable.  Public companies decisions were so strictly influenced by these computer models and ‘anal’yst expectations that good business decisions were put on hold or adjusted for fear of the external commentary.  Business, like sports, is not a beauty contest.  There are rules and expectations.  Strong, well lead teams will often win.  Even the underdog can find their way when they come together and work well.  The game of business is decided on the street.  Not Wall Street but on Main Street.  The game is played hard, it is played fast, and winning is rewarded and losing is painful.  Winning and viability is defined by customers, employees, owners, and suppliers coming together to get things accomplished.  It not determined by some ‘anal’yst with a formula and an opinion.

Whether in college football or business, the ‘anal’yst model just does not work.  If you think it does, think again.  Our economy is in the tank because we spent so much time focused on the fastest way to get to the bottom line and maximize our profits that we took shortcuts.  Shortcuts that pleased our ‘anal’ysts,  jeopardized our long term viability.  In this new economic model, we need to focus on the competitive behaviors that will strengthen business.  Well served customers, talented and motivated employees, patient and knowledgeable shareholders, and strategically aligned suppliers are all components of that mix.  Note, that the beauty contest commentary of the competitively challenged anal’ysts are not mentioned.  Why?  They do not understand the game or the rules.

One Comment

  1. morison dony says:

    Hello, I found your blog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, Your blog looks good. Have a nice day.