I really love the good infographics that illustrate the relationship between complex data. A picture really is worth a thousand words. But like good written journalism, good infographic journalism requires some understanding of the subject matter, and an effort to remove bias. Most of my training in critical thinking focused on looking for loaded words in an article; but didn't cover images in much detail, so this is an area that may be ripe for abuse (through malice or incompetence).
Fast Company's article on CEO Pay infographics (the graphics were actually commissioned and ranked by Good Magazine) really illustrates this point. The graphics are very attractive, and do a great job conveying a point. But they don't actually make any sense - they are like a well written article written by someone who has no understanding of the subject.
For example, the first graphic, which was judged best by Good Magazine, and which I agree is the most compelling and information rich image, make no rational point that I can discover. It compares CEO pay with the number of minimum wage employees it could support. Why not compare CEO pay with the number of oranges it could buy? I think it would be just as meaningful. I doubt that anyone really believes that a company could exchange its CEO for a whole pile of minimum wage employees and get the same results, so why compare them?
To me, the only metric that makes any sense for measuring CEO pay, is to ask "would the company be better off if it didn't spend the money?" For example, you wouldn't compare the most expensive machine in a factory to the least expensive machine, and you certainly wouldn't wonder how many of the inexpensive machines you could buy for the price of the expensive one. The only consideration you would have when purchasing a $10M machine is whether the business will benefit by at least (and hopefully more) than $10M.
The second graphic compares the CEO pay to their company's profits. This gets closer to the mark, but of course, since the CEO's actions may take time to benefit the company, you have to consider their pay and the company benefit over time - one year is not nearly long enough. Moreover, you still don't know how the company would have done without paying the CEO, or more practically, by spending half as much on the CEO. If spending an extra $1.00 on the CEO makes the company more valuable by $1.10, this is a good deal, and you should pay as much as you can, until the effect wears off.
Finally, the last graphic is nice for promoting the idea that CEOs are back-room, cigar smoking, old cronies, but it doesn't do a good job of presenting the data - it completely wastes the horizontal axis. The graphic purports to compare age with salary, but it just slaps an age label next to the salary amount - there is no graphical comparison between those two numbers. If, for example, the artist had made the horizontal axis indicate age (the vertical already indicates salary), then we could have looked for a trend or a grouping. As it is, I have to read all the numbers (which are inconveniently written sideways) to determine even the simplest concepts, like does the oldest person make the most money, and does the youngest person make the least? From the data, it appears that there is no relationship between age and salary, although the graphic doesn't highlight this fact either.
I really like good infographics, because they have tremendous power to make complex relationships obvious. I really hate bad infographics, because they give nonexistent relationships tremendous credibility. If we are going to have a contest for the best, we should be judging them on their ability to make the truth apparent, not to make misinformation more appealing. Good magazine is making infographics worse by honoring bad images. Fast Company is making itself look like a business magazine that doesn't understand business when it highlights these as good examples of how to understand CEO pay.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Cool but Useless?
A Voice in the Wilderness sent me this video about a Segway-like unicycle. He thought it was cool, but not very useful. Most of the comments under the video suggest that anyone who rides one of these is just lazy – why can’t they just walk? I disagree.
I think the point of these is not to ride from the parking lot into the building, or to ride from office to office at work, but to enhance public transportation. If I want to ride the subway, I have to walk from my house to the station, then walk from the station to my office. I may also be faced with a walk for lunch(1). Of course, I am capable of walking; I can even walk long distances. But when I am wearing a suit, and carrying a 25lb briefcase (2), and worried about what time I get there, a half-mile is about as far as I want to walk. Lunch during working hours is an even bigger deal, because every minute I spend walking to my destination has to come out of my lunch time, or my work day, or my personal time at the end of the day. That creates a limited circle of places I can go, which limits my choices for lunch – maybe forcing me into the dreaded McDonald's that so offended commenters.
The point of the Segway, and of this similar unicycle device is not to let you be lazy and do less, but to let you go farther and do more. I can walk a mile in 20 minutes. Maybe in those same 20 minutes I can go 5 or 10 miles (and not be exhausted when I get there), or maybe I can travel that same mile in 2 minutes, and create 18 minutes (or 36 minutes, round trip) in my day. If I am a commuter, a device like this can make the difference between being able to use public transportation and preferring to drive my car. The unicycle shown in the video seems much smaller than the Segway, so more practical on subways and buses. (Plus, people apparently won’t laugh at you as much on the unicycle, compared to the Segway - http://www.paulgraham.com/segway.html)
Finally, for the crowd that thinks I should revel in the walk for fitness sake, I agree with the ideal, but I have lots of goals in my life, including how much work I get done during business hours, what time I leave my family in the morning and what time I get home at night, and how I look (and smell) to the people I work with. For the most part, I get my exercise on my own time (3).
I am not sure what the real limit to the adoption of the Segway was (or is), so I don't know whether a unicycle will fare any better. Technology is making the world smaller, and this helps solve the problem of moving people more efficiently over the last mile between public transportation and their destination.
Notes:
1. I actually work out of my home office, so I don't commute. But I do face these decisions whenever I travel to a major city with good public transportation - I like to use it, but look carefully at the "last mile" walking distances. This always limits my choices on hotels and restaurants, and often forces me to rent a car.
2. When I was in business school (and traveling as part of my full-time job), weighed my bag at 25 lbs. It typically contained one or two laptops, two or three large books, lots of accessories, and all the miscellaneous junk you need when you are trying to get a lot done while you are away from home, like gum, breath mints, extra batteries, lots of business cards (two versions of mine, plus everyone I have met in the last week or two), etc. It adds up fast, and by the end of the week, you notice which shoulder you have been using the most.
3. And if you think I should quit being such a sell-out workaholic, and become a forest ranger so I can wear shorts, walk around and commune with nature all day long - I'll bet you don't give the same advice to your doctor, or your lawyer, or the airline pilot on your plane. You probably hope those guys are really focused and good at their job. You don't know what I do for a living, but I don't think you would be happier if I stopped doing it well. I know I wouldn't.
I think the point of these is not to ride from the parking lot into the building, or to ride from office to office at work, but to enhance public transportation. If I want to ride the subway, I have to walk from my house to the station, then walk from the station to my office. I may also be faced with a walk for lunch(1). Of course, I am capable of walking; I can even walk long distances. But when I am wearing a suit, and carrying a 25lb briefcase (2), and worried about what time I get there, a half-mile is about as far as I want to walk. Lunch during working hours is an even bigger deal, because every minute I spend walking to my destination has to come out of my lunch time, or my work day, or my personal time at the end of the day. That creates a limited circle of places I can go, which limits my choices for lunch – maybe forcing me into the dreaded McDonald's that so offended commenters.
The point of the Segway, and of this similar unicycle device is not to let you be lazy and do less, but to let you go farther and do more. I can walk a mile in 20 minutes. Maybe in those same 20 minutes I can go 5 or 10 miles (and not be exhausted when I get there), or maybe I can travel that same mile in 2 minutes, and create 18 minutes (or 36 minutes, round trip) in my day. If I am a commuter, a device like this can make the difference between being able to use public transportation and preferring to drive my car. The unicycle shown in the video seems much smaller than the Segway, so more practical on subways and buses. (Plus, people apparently won’t laugh at you as much on the unicycle, compared to the Segway - http://www.paulgraham.com/segway.html)
Finally, for the crowd that thinks I should revel in the walk for fitness sake, I agree with the ideal, but I have lots of goals in my life, including how much work I get done during business hours, what time I leave my family in the morning and what time I get home at night, and how I look (and smell) to the people I work with. For the most part, I get my exercise on my own time (3).
I am not sure what the real limit to the adoption of the Segway was (or is), so I don't know whether a unicycle will fare any better. Technology is making the world smaller, and this helps solve the problem of moving people more efficiently over the last mile between public transportation and their destination.
Notes:
1. I actually work out of my home office, so I don't commute. But I do face these decisions whenever I travel to a major city with good public transportation - I like to use it, but look carefully at the "last mile" walking distances. This always limits my choices on hotels and restaurants, and often forces me to rent a car.
2. When I was in business school (and traveling as part of my full-time job), weighed my bag at 25 lbs. It typically contained one or two laptops, two or three large books, lots of accessories, and all the miscellaneous junk you need when you are trying to get a lot done while you are away from home, like gum, breath mints, extra batteries, lots of business cards (two versions of mine, plus everyone I have met in the last week or two), etc. It adds up fast, and by the end of the week, you notice which shoulder you have been using the most.
3. And if you think I should quit being such a sell-out workaholic, and become a forest ranger so I can wear shorts, walk around and commune with nature all day long - I'll bet you don't give the same advice to your doctor, or your lawyer, or the airline pilot on your plane. You probably hope those guys are really focused and good at their job. You don't know what I do for a living, but I don't think you would be happier if I stopped doing it well. I know I wouldn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)