The 21st Century is a time of unlimited data points! Statistics and statical analysis are available for every topic under the sun. Whether it be Sabermetrics in baseball, or detailed demographic political polling of electoral candidates, or the circulation of library books by branch location, numbers are readily available to explore any situation. However, what happens when people rely too much on the data? In that case they may fall into the “McNamara Fallacy.”

In a recent article on the Big Think website, columnist Jonny Thomson explores how we can get so caught up looking at data points that we fail to take into account the bigger picture. He names this the “McNamara Fallacy”.

The fallacy is named after Robert McNamara, the U.S. Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, where his over-reliance on measurable data led to several misguided strategies where considering certain human and contextual elements would have been successful.

Thomson goes on to explain why numbers are not the be all and end of analysis.

The “McNamara Fallacy” is not saying that using data is bad or that collecting as much information as you can is wasted time. It’s saying that fixating only on numbers blinds us to the rich stories and subtle details that truly shape experiences, resulting in choices that miss the heart and soul of the situation. If we spend too long looking at spreadsheets and data points, we forget to look around.

To avoid getting caught in the fallacy, Thomson offers a few options to expand one’s viewpoint. The first is digging into details.

In many companies, employee performance is measured solely by quantitative metrics like sales numbers or the number of tasks completed. While these figures provide some insight, often the important information is buried in the details. Let’s imagine two people, Jane and Jack, who need to bring in a client. Last year, Jack secured 20 and Jane 15. Good job, team! But, behind the numbers, there’s more to be seen. Jack’s clients really didn’t like him. He had a sleazy, insensitive manner that was off-putting. Within a year, most of his clients had left. Jane, on the other hand, wooed and won her clients by dint of personality. She cared about the person she met. Her clients all stayed around. So, who is the better employee?

To learn about the other strategies to avoid the fallacy, please read the rest of the article.