
One Simple Way to Get Better at Reading Data
Edwards Deming famously said, 'In God we trust; all others bring data.' As we've evolved from analytics to data science to AI, the world has never been more data driven. And as a leader, you are expected to make sound decisions backed up by data. However, leaders rarely use raw data directly for decision making. Instead, they are likely to be a consumer of statistics calculated by their direct reports to help them make informed decisions.
While data are observed, the presenter decides which statistics are relevant in a particular context. Should the average of the data be presented? Should the standard deviation also be presented? Should the complete distribution of the data be presented? Should differences in the raw data, for example sales, or percentage change in market share be presented?
What you need to remember is: Statistics are not data; they are descriptions of data. To make smarter decisions, you need to know how to question the statistics or as The Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig recently wrote, 'learning how to talk back to statistics is your first line of defense.'
In our experience, we have noticed one particular basic statistical issue—the use of percentages can be used in confusing ways to influence others. The confusion typically resides with the denominator. Like Zweig, when faced with percentages, we are advocating that leaders need to talk back to, that is, question the statistics. One simple but enlightening question to ask is 'What's the denominator?'
Let's look at three cases where asking this question could help avoid misinterpretation and confusion.
Percentage Versus Absolute Difference
A presenter has the choice to provide an absolute or a percentage change. For example, in his article on stock market volatility, Zweig discusses how financial marketers play to your emotions with online headlines like 'DOW PLUNGES BY MORE THAN 1000 POINTS.' He laments the trick of 'hiding the denominator.' This is a classic example of when you need to ask: What's the denominator?
Take a look at the equation below.
Here, knowing the denominator lets us convert the change in the value of the Dow to a percentage, which is how we typically think about a change in our investments. If the value of the Dow is 40,000, for example, then we can convert to a percentage change by doing the division and multiplying by 100:
Now, read that headline again and ask yourself: Is a drop in value of 2.5% a plunge? That is somewhat subjective, but a headline of 'Dow Plunges by 2.5%' does not seem to generate the same sense of urgency. Hence, how we use certain statistics (or not) and verbiage can be persuasive and mislead decision makers.
As a leader, it is prudent to ask why the presenter is choosing to provide raw data versus percentages. For example, if a regional sales manager reports that a new retail outlet increased sales by $100,000 this month, knowing what sales were last month is very relevant. If sales last month were $200,000 that's an impressive 50% increase in sales. If sales were $1,000,000, then it is a less impressive increase of 10%.
This same persuasive use occurs when only presenting the percentage change. If the regional sales manager reports 'We had a decline in sales in our Manhattan store this past month, but it is only 2%,' it might be good to know the denominator of this percentage. If the Manhattan store is a very high-performing store, 2% might be a lot of revenue.
The bottom line is to be fully informed. You should always expect to receive the percentage and the denominator, the relative and the absolute difference. For example, 'Sales increased by 50%, from $200,000 to $300,000.'
Another issue we have seen is what we call the past participle problem. Quite simply, if a percentage triples (or doubles) the absolute amount only triples (or doubles) if the denominator is the same in both cases.
If your marketing manager says your market share has tripled in the last year, that is likely to be very good news. But it doesn't mean that revenue has tripled over the same period. In fact, it's possible that revenue decreased. Suppose last year's revenue was $50 million and the market revenue was $1 billion. Your market share was 50/1000 = 5%. If the market shrinks dramatically, say to $200 million and your market share this year is $30 million, your market share has tripled from 5% to 30/200, or 15%, but your revenue dropped by $20 million. Always ask, 'What's the denominator?' In this case the market size in the previous year, and the market size in the current year are the relevant denominators.
The Biased Denominator
Our second case involves a biased denominator, most often associated with percentages from survey responses. Although somewhat dated, in his column on misapplications of statistics, Arnie Barnett provides an excellent example of this case.
In the 1980s, Midway Airlines operated a shuttle between Chicago and New York City. On October 20, 1983, an advertisement in the New York Times stated '84% of frequent business travelers to Chicago prefer Midway Metrolink over American, United, and TWA.' Well, what's the denominator here? Presumably, they surveyed frequent business travelers between New York and Chicago to see which airline they preferred. Of course, one could ask, 'How frequent does one have to fly between New York and Chicago to be counted?' The bias in the denominator in this case is even more blatant. In very small print at the bottom of the ad they provide the answer to 'What's the denominator?' It states, 'Survey conducted among Midway Metrolink passengers between LaGuardia and Chicago.' So, apparently, the denominator only included passengers on their flights! As Barnett indicated, the only conclusion you can really draw from this survey is that 16% of their own customers prefer another airline.
As a leader, you will likely track metrics like customer satisfaction and employee engagement. Consider an employee engagement survey which results in 80% of the respondents reporting high job satisfaction. You should ask 'What's the denominator?' For example, if the survey was only sent to non-customer-facing employees, the results would likely be biased.
With survey results, you will benefit from knowing the percentage of respondents in each category of response and the raw numbers. In the case of voluntary customer satisfaction surveys, there is always the danger of a bias from only receiving extreme responses (extremely satisfied or extremely unsatisfied customers). Knowing the percentage of customers responding versus the number of surveys distributed, that is, the percentage of customers who respond provides some valuable information on how representative the survey statistics might be.
The Flipped Conditional
In January 2025, the U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory on alcohol consumption and the risk of cancer. The advisory describes evidence of a causal relationship between alcohol consumption and several different types of cancer. For some types of cancers, the evidence suggests that the risk of cancer increases even for low or moderate consumption of alcohol. One of the courses of action recommended was to expand the warning label on alcohol to include the risk of cancer.
A rebuttal to the need for expanding labeling on alcohol followed in The Wall Street Journal and illustrates what we call the flipped conditional. An editorial board member questions the data used by Dr. Murthy and then uses the following argument opposing Dr. Murthy's recommendation: 'the report partially attributes only 17% of these estimated deaths to moderate drinking. Of the 609,820 cancer deaths in 2023, this would mean moderate drinking contributed to 3,400 or about 0.6%.'
What's the denominator in this argument? The denominator here is the number of cancer deaths (609,820). The 0.006 is the probability of your cancer being attributed to moderate drinking given that you have cancer. The relevant probability to assess the risk of moderately drinking alcohol is the probability of getting cancer given that you moderately drink alcohol. Think of it this way, how many people have cancer is irrelevant to the risk of cancer from moderately drinking alcohol, precisely because a lot of other things can cause cancer. The Surgeon General's Advisory provides estimated risk of cancer based on gender and the amount of alcohol consumed. These are the relevant statistics one needs to answer questions like 'If I am a male who consumes one alcoholic drink per day, what is my risk of developing cancer?'
Suppose your marketing team is reporting on how effective their free trial offer has been and states '75% of our customers who purchased our upgraded premium product have used our free trial!' That sounds very impressive. However, this metric is not relevant for determining the effectiveness of the free trial offer. It is using the wrong denominator.
To assess the effectiveness of the free trial offer, you don't need the percentage of premium purchases who used the free trial, you need the percentage of free trial users who wind up purchasing the premium product. To illustrate this, let's imagine a simple scenario.
Suppose 1,500 customers took the free trial upgrade, 100 customers purchased the new upgrade and of the 100 who purchased the new upgraded product, 75 had used the free trial.
That is, the conversion rate was only 5%.
We believe it is always a good idea to question the data. When percentages are used, it is imperative that important information is not masked by the statistics. Ask for percentages and absolutes to both be discussed. Clarity comes by asking 'What's the denominator?' If you want to know how effective something is, it needs to be in the denominator.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ira Winderman: How the Thunder came to own the NBA (and the Heat's draft future)
MIAMI — Salt meet wound. Not only will the Oklahoma City Thunder be playing in this year's NBA Finals, but so will a team holding a considerable stake of the Miami Heat's draft future. In this case, it's one and the same. Advertisement When the 2025 NBA Finals open Thursday at Paycom Center, the team in the home colors will be the team in possession of the Heat's 2025 first-round pick, the Heat's 2027 second-round pick, the Heat's 2029 second-round pick and the Heat's 2030 second-round pick. To say the tables have been turned since the Heat's Big Three of LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh defeated the Thunder in the 2012 NBA Finals would be an understatement, with the Thunder having supplanted the Heat as a touchstone franchise. Yes, the Heat went on to win not only those 2012 NBA Finals but also the following NBA Finals against the San Antonio Spurs. And, yes, the Heat since have made another pair of visits since to the NBA Finals. But it's not as if the Thunder fell off the face of the playoff race in the interim, with trips to conference finals in 2014 and '16 and then all the way back up to the conference semifinals a year ago, before this 68-14 roughshod run through the regular season and then this playoff success. Advertisement And, along the way — perhaps in a lesson worth heeding by the Heat in their current state — offering a lesson that there is nothing wrong with taking a break. Prior to this OKC revival, the Thunder were 22-50 in 2020-21, 24-58 in 2021-22 and 40-42 in 2022-23, before the jump back up to 57-25 a season ago. Stepping back to step forward has never quite been a Pat Riley gait, admitting just weeks ago he had been complicit in a pair of tanks over his three-decade stewardship, otherwise pedal to the metal, even when all the gears weren't necessarily aligned. And unlike with the Thunder's trove of draft picks, the Heat consistently have instead dealt many away in the hope of something closer to instant gratification (hello, Terry Rozier). Advertisement But as much as anything is the type of move made by the Thunder that Riley arguably has never made over his 30 seasons, selling high to set up the future. Exhibit A (or, more to the point, non-Exhibit A) stands as holding on a bit too long with Jimmy Butler and realizing February's middling return. This, of course, also is where the drawing of parallels needs to be allowed to breathe, because the Thunder's franchise-altering trade was once-in-a-decade stuff, or even beyond. On July 10, 2019, days after the Heat had wrapped up their acquisition of Butler from the Philadelphia 76ers in yet another of Riley's win-now moves, the Thunder swung the deal that now again has Oklahoma City as a center of the NBA universe. On that date, the Thunder dealt Paul George to the Los Angeles Clippers for Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Danilo Gallinari, the 2021 first-round pick that turned into Tre Mann, the 2022 first-round pick that turned into Jalen Williams, a 2023 first-round pick that turned into Dillon Jones, the No. 15 pick in this year's draft that will come from the Heat, a pick swap this June from the Clippers (moving up from No. 30 to No. 24) and the Clippers' 2026 first-round pick. Advertisement As in 2025 NBA Most Valuable Player Shai Gilgeous-Alexander. As in 2025 third-team All-NBA selection Jalen Williams. As in enough remaining draft capital to trade for another star, if need be. No, the Heat were not getting for 35-year-old Jimmy Butler in February what the Thunder in 2019 got for 29-year-old Paul George. And for those who believe the Heat should have acted sooner, they also weren't getting anything close to that for 34-year-old Jimmy Butler last summer, either. About as close as you can find to that in this millennium arguably was the Celtics' 2013 trade of what remained of Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce to the Brooklyn Nets for what turned into the draft selections of Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown. Advertisement As for those future Heat picks now held by the Thunder, the selection at No. 15 in this year's draft traveled to Oklahoma City from the Butler trade in 2019; the 2027 second-rounder due came from the Heat's 2021 acquisition of Trevor Ariza from the Thunder; the 2029 second-rounder due from the Heat came from the 2023 salary dump of Victor Oladipo to the Thunder, which also cost the Heat their 2030 second-round pick. So as good as it currently stands for Oklahoma City, and for as ominous as it currently stands for the Heat, while watching the 2025 NBA Finals keep in mind ... the Heat also are funding the Thunder's future. (Or simply watch the Panthers in the Stanley Cup Final instead.) ____

Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
23andMe founder says Fortune 500 company backs new buyout offer
The founder of 23andMe has asked a federal bankruptcy court judge to reopen an auction for the genetic testing company, saying she has the Sign in to access your portfolio


CBS News
18 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump's "one big beautiful bill" holdout Sen. Rand Paul says "the math doesn't really add up"
Washington — Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said Sunday that "the math doesn't really add up" on the cost of President Trump's "one big beautiful bill," while outlining his opposition as the legislation moves to the Senate this week. "I think they're asking for too much money," Paul said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." Paul is among a handful of Senate Republicans who have expressed opposition to the centerpiece legislation of Mr. Trump's second term agenda that addresses the president's tax, defense and energy priorities and which the House narrowly approved last month. The Kentucky Republican argued Sunday that with the legislation, "there's going to be a lot of extra money" going toward "padding the military budget" and additional border security when "the President has essentially stopped the border flow without new money and without any legislation." But Paul's red line, he indicated, is on the legislation's provision that would to raise the debt ceiling. The House-passed bill includes a $4 trillion debt ceiling hike, while the Senate's budget blueprint contained a $5 trillion increase. And Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told congressional leaders earlier this month that the federal government could be unable to pay its bills as soon as August if Congress doesn't act. Paul has advocated for removing the debt ceiling provision from the bill and voting on the issue separately. Paul said he wants to vote for the legislation and its tax components should the debt ceiling component be removed, saying "in all likelihood, I can vote for what the agreement is on the rest of the bill, and it doesn't have to be perfect to my liking." But for him, the debt ceiling increase is a nonstarter. "If I vote for the $5 trillion debt, who's left in Washington that cares about the debt?" Paul said. "The GOP will own the debt once they vote for this." Congressional Republicans have sought to raise the debt ceiling as part of the broader budget package because the reconciliation process that governs the bill allows them to move forward without support from across the aisle. Separating the debt ceiling component from the broader bill would mean Senate Republicans would have to negotiate with Democrats, giving them an opportunity to extract leverage despite the GOP majorities in Congress. Still, Paul argued that the Republicans who support the spending increase should be the ones responsible for voting for a debt ceiling increase, noting that Democrats have historically supported raising the debt limit as well. The Kentucky Republican has also proposed smaller increases that suspend the debt limit for a matter of months, forcing lawmakers to verify that spending cuts have been implemented before approving a further hike. Mr. Trump warned Paul about opposing the legislation in a post on Truth Social Saturday, saying "Rand will be playing right into the hands of the Democrats, and the GREAT people of Kentucky will never forgive him!" Meanwhile, Bessent, who also appeared Sunday on "Face the Nation," pushed back on the bill's forecasted impact on the deficit, pointing to income from tariffs among other things that he said will improve the full picture. The treasury secretary said changes to the bill will be "the Senate's decision," noting that he's been working closely with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, whom he said has been "doing a fantastic job." "Everyone said that Speaker Johnson would not be able to get this bill out of the House with his slim majority – he got it out, " Bessent said. "Leader Thune has a bigger majority, and this is with President Trump's leadership." Asked about the administration's red lines as the bill heads to the Senate, Bessent pointed to some of the president's campaign promises, including no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, among others, which he said would "have to stay in." On the debt limit, Bessent urged that "the United States of America is never going to default." But he declined to specify an X date, or the date the U.S. will run out of money to pay its bills. "That is never going to happen," he added. "We are on the warning track, and we will never hit the wall."