<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Analysis is for illumination, not self-aggrandizement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.turningnewsintoknowledge.com/2010/01/18/analysis-is-for-illumination-not-self-aggrandizement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.turningnewsintoknowledge.com/2010/01/18/analysis-is-for-illumination-not-self-aggrandizement/</link>
	<description>Turning News Into Knowledge – Understanding Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:22:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Williams</title>
		<link>http://www.turningnewsintoknowledge.com/2010/01/18/analysis-is-for-illumination-not-self-aggrandizement/comment-page-1/#comment-16092</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.turningnewsintoknowledge.com/?p=358#comment-16092</guid>
		<description>Brett, this is interesting. In my experience, we&#039;ve been too wedded to our own personal biases (and feelings) than dispassionate research. Using research to inform judgment seems to be the best resolution to this question.

Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, writes that among the committed ideologues, fact is less relevant than belief. We see this played out in pedestrian quarters, not just the halls of power, when we see PR people who won&#039;t measure their programs -- they like the lack of accountability, the sense of playing the artist. They&#039;re convinced of their own intrinsic judgment to point of refusing to brook dissent. 

It&#039;s also true that if we use research merely to prove that what we&#039;re doing or recommending is right, we are indeed missing the point! A brief example. For some time, I&#039;ve held that a main purpose of employee communication is convincing your workforce to expend discretionary effort toward achieving organizational goals. I&#039;m revisiting that belief in the wake of some discussions to the contrary. I&#039;m willing to change my mind if there&#039;s data that will illuminate me.

But then, I&#039;m kind of a dweeb for this stuff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brett, this is interesting. In my experience, we&#8217;ve been too wedded to our own personal biases (and feelings) than dispassionate research. Using research to inform judgment seems to be the best resolution to this question.</p>
<p>Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, writes that among the committed ideologues, fact is less relevant than belief. We see this played out in pedestrian quarters, not just the halls of power, when we see PR people who won&#8217;t measure their programs &#8212; they like the lack of accountability, the sense of playing the artist. They&#8217;re convinced of their own intrinsic judgment to point of refusing to brook dissent. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s also true that if we use research merely to prove that what we&#8217;re doing or recommending is right, we are indeed missing the point! A brief example. For some time, I&#8217;ve held that a main purpose of employee communication is convincing your workforce to expend discretionary effort toward achieving organizational goals. I&#8217;m revisiting that belief in the wake of some discussions to the contrary. I&#8217;m willing to change my mind if there&#8217;s data that will illuminate me.</p>
<p>But then, I&#8217;m kind of a dweeb for this stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
