P= 40 to 70

Producing effective and useful research that can be used in a practical sense seems comparable to landing a small fighter jet on an aircraft carrier amid high winds and turbulent seas. It can be done, but only after significant training, practice, and understanding. Effective research requires incredible focus, a well-defined problem amid a sea of possibilities, and a strong understanding of the environment while giving rise to the amount of time it takes to market. As the sort of "novice pilot" in this particular research course, I am ill-prepared to successfully make an attempt at landing a study that may be useful for practitioners in the field. While this is not the likely goal of the course, it remains a longer-term personal goal of mine that I hope to use in my go-forward career life.

My choice in the title of P= 40 to 70 derives from one of Colin Powell's well-known leadership quotes. Harari (2002) quotes Powell's leadership rule # 15 as “Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired. Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut.” While the actual percentage of information may not be easily measured, the idea is that if you have less than 40%, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision. If you have more than 70%, then you maybe have waited too long and someone else may have already made the decision for you.

As scholar-practitioners in the increasingly important field of Organization Development, I believe our usefulness and ultimate effectiveness will rely on our ability to arm our leaders and stakeholders with enough information to make critical decisions, but also being sensitive to the time and cost which fits Powell's leadership principle. Powell's leadership rule #3 worth noting is "“Don’t be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often possess more data than judgment. Elites can become so inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death as soon as they are nicked by the real world.” Navigating the board rooms with elites and relying on opinions of the experts in an organization is potentially a dangerous move if we are conducting organizational research.

While the common theme in my blog here has to do with a sort of military mindset, the challenges and unpredictabilities in the context of organizations and generating useful "intel" is really a solid analogy in my mind.  To combat this, I hope to learn more about the following questions in this course:

 1. How do you know when you have enough information to help leaders make sound decisions in an OD intervention? How much is needed to be effective?  When is too much information ineffective? 

2. Why is there such a disconnect between producing effective research in an academic sense and producing research that is seen as effective and valued in the practical sense?  

3. How do you handle an OD intervention when the client is focused on implementing a solution while the OD consultant believes that more research is needed before moving forward?

4. When would a researcher use a combination of research methods as opposed to maintaining focus on one?

5. If you are conducting research in more than one country where multiple languages are written and spoken, how do you ensure consistency in data collection within various qualitative methods?


I am particularly drawn to the Case Study research approach given its seemingly more practical application. The case study approach allows for both quantitative and qualitative research methods which I find to be more valuable as a consumer of information.  As Creswell points out, the case study approach requires substantial thought in scoping the case and setting the boundaries which does add time and effort to the front end.

Reference List:

Harari, O. (2002). The Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell. New York: McGraw-Hill.