My Digital FootPrint

“Every” management student has had to answer the exam question: “Leadership/ management: Nature or Nurture? - discuss” It is a paradox from either side of the argument, the logical conclusion always highlights the other has truth. The reality of leadership and management is that it is a complex adaptive system, and context enables your nature to emerge and nurturing to mature.  This is important because we also know there is a link between strategy, styles (leadership) and business structures.  In this article, we will unpack how your “nature or nurture” thinking-structure, affects outcomes.  Your thinking-structure is also a complex adaptive system as your peers and customers thinking, your companies “culture of structure” thinking affect you. BUT have you considered how your data structure and your data philosophy will have a direct and significant impact on outcomes?  I’ve known that my neurodiversity package (severe dyslexia, mild high functioning autism, ADHD) informs how I inter

We are continually moving towards better data-led decisions, however, without understanding “What is the purpose of data / Does data have a purpose”   on which we are basing decisions and judgements, it is hard to understand if our north star (a good decision) is a good one.  Why am I interested in this, as I am focusing on how we do governance and oversight better in a data-led world.  I wrote a lengthy article on Data is Data. It was a kickback at the analogies that data is oil, gold, labour, sunlight - data is not. Data is unique; it has unique characteristics. That article concluded that the word “Data” is also part of the problem, but we should think of data as if discovering a new element with unique characteristics.    For a while, the data community has rested on two key characteristics of data: non-rivalrous ( which plays havoc with our current understanding of ownership ) and non-fungible ( which is true if you assume that data carries information .)  Whilst these are both