Information guides; humans decide

Today, there is a concept that has become a buzzword in the business world: “data-driven.” In management, this refers to making strategic and operational decisions based not on intuition, but on concrete data analysis, market trends, and customer feedback—in other words, on real data and information. One of the most frequently heard phrases in today’s business environment is: “Everything is data now.” But is that really the case? Companies collect more data than ever before, produce more reports, and rely on increasingly detailed dashboards. But employees at these same companies are speaking up less, managers are listening less, and decisions are becoming increasingly mechanical. Yet the real question is this: which is more important—data or people? The answer is clear: this isn’t a matter of choice, but of balance!

The 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle disaster is one of the most tragic examples of data management. NASA had data indicating that O-ring components could fail at low temperatures, so the problem was not unknown. But that data wasn’t interpreted correctly! The real problem was that no one listened to the engineers who recognized the importance of that data and raised objections! The Cold War was still ongoing, and the United States was eager to demonstrate that it was ahead of the Soviet Union in the space race. The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the 25th flight of NASA’s Space Shuttle program. The O-ring in the solid rocket booster lost its elasticity due to low temperatures, as engineers had previously identified as a high-probability risk. As a result, leaking hot gases breached the fuel tank, leading to an explosion just 73 seconds after launch. This engineering failure, combined with organizational pressure and communication breakdowns, resulted in a fatal accident in NASA’s history. In an attempt to gain a competitive advantage for political reasons, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster led to the suspension of NASA’s Space Shuttle program for nearly three years. The engineers who continued to resist until the final moments of the flight were competent and merit-based, but the same could not be said for the managers to whom they reported. The entire crew of seven highly skilled individuals tragically lost their lives. One of the greatest human tragedies in history, the Great Chinese Famine, was not merely a data problem; in a sense similar to the Challenger case in 1986, it was fundamentally a problem of human management rather than information. During the era of Mao Zedong, local officials, driven by fear of the central government, routinely inflated production figures and reported them as higher than they actually were. On paper, everything appeared to be going well, and the data suggested “success,” while in reality millions of people were dying from starvation. Today, companies face a similar risk: when employees do not speak up and managers only hear what they want to hear, data stops reflecting reality and instead begins to reflect expectations. Sustainable success can only be achieved not merely through data, but in collaboration with people. In 1981, a specific shift team at a Toyota factory consistently exceeded its production targets. This situation later caught the attention of industrial engineer Taiichi Ohno, who would go on to help reshape Toyota’s production system. Instead of relying solely on reports and making decisions from behind a desk, he went to the factory floor and carefully observed the workers. The team on duty during that shift, which appeared successful on paper, was not actually more skilled or successful. In order to meet production targets, they tended to overlook minor defects and passed problems on to the next shift to avoid stopping the assembly line. In contrast, the team labeled as slower or less successful would immediately stop production as soon as they detected an error, making the problem visible to everyone. If you just look at the numbers, they seem to have failed, but in reality, they work with much greater transparency and meticulousness. They were upholding Toyota’s honor, reputation, and brand reliability! Despite objections from many managers at different levels, Taiichi Ohno promoted the shift workers who had the courage to stop production the moment they detected a defect. He also parted ways with some of those who had concealed errors merely to meet production targets, and issued strict warnings to the remaining staff. Over time, Ohno was proven right: defect rates and long-term costs at the factory decreased, and overall quality improved.

Do you know who the first Turkish ruler in history to use the title “Sultan” was? It was Mahmud of Ghazni, who launched as many as 17 campaigns into India with the aim of spreading Islam, helping to establish a lasting Islamic presence in the region and laying the historical foundations of present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. He was also granted a formal investiture by the Abbasid Caliph, recognizing his outstanding services to the Islamic world, and thereby earned the title “Sultan.”  A thousand years ago, Mahmud of Ghazni exercised state leadership based on knowledge, data grounded in reality, and merit. For this reason, he went down in history as the greatest ruler of the Ghaznavid Empire and one of the most important leaders in Turkish-Islamic history. Sultan Mahmud’s meticulous commitment to meritocracy was so strict that he raised a young slave shepherd of Georgian origin named Ayaz as if he were his own son, and over time appointed him to some of the most important positions in the state. This relationship occupied Persian literary figures and Islamic historians for a long time. Let me recount a story about Sultan Mahmud and Ayaz: one day, his loyal nobles asked Sultan Mahmud, “What talent does this slave Ayaz have that makes you pay him a salary equal to that of thirty men?” Sultan Mahmud smiled but did not answer the question. A few days later, he went hunting with his nobles. As they rode along, they noticed a caravan in the distance. Sultan Mahmud turned to one of the nobles and said, “Go and find out where that caravan is coming from.” The noble rode off and returned shortly afterward. “My lord,” he said, “the caravan is coming from the city of Rayy.” Sultan Mahmud then asked, “And where is it headed?” The noble fell silent, having failed to ask the question. The ruler then sent another noble, who returned and said, “My lord, it is heading to Yemen.” Sultan Mahmud asked, “And what was it carrying?” The emir, too, fell silent. This time, he turned to another noble and said, “Then go and find out what it is carrying.” The man went and returned, replying, “It carries goods of many kinds, but most of the cargo consists of Rayy pottery.” Mahmud then asked, “And when did the caravan depart from Rayy?” At that point, he too was unable to answer. In this manner, Sultan Mahmud assigned the same task to a total of thirty nobles. One after another, they returned with only partial information and were unable to answer the next question. Not one of them came back with a complete understanding of the situation. Finally, Sultan Mahmud summoned Ayaz, who was completely unaware of what had taken place. Giving him the same instruction he had given the first noble, he said, “Ayaz, go and find out where that caravan is coming from.” Ayaz quickly rode off and returned shortly afterward. Standing respectfully before the Sultan, he bowed and said, “My lord, I have learned everything that was necessary about the caravan. It is coming from Rayy and is bound for Yemen. Its cargo consists of the following goods, and it is made up of this many horses, this many camels, and this many mules. There are this many people in the caravan, of whom this number are armed guards.” He describes the caravan in great detail. All the nobles listen to all this with their mouths agape. Thus, Ayaz, acting alone, has acquired the knowledge that thirty nobles could not, and accomplished the task they could not. Sultan Mahmud turns to his nobles and asks, quite rightly, “Do you now understand why I paid my loyal servant Ayaz the equivalent of thirty men’s wages?” (Masnavi, Vol. VI, verse 385).

I do not wish to make this article unnecessarily long or tire the reader; there is one point I would particularly like to emphasize. As you know, the history of Turkish commerce is filled with numerous crises, as well as many companies and brands that have disappeared over time. In my recent studies of firms operating across different industries, I have identified a common pattern: catastrophic failures were rarely caused by “a lack of data”. Rather, they resulted from inaccurate data, incomplete data, or data that was simply ignored. In Türkiye, companies have often failed not because of a lack of data, but because their senior management believed inaccurate information or misinterpreted the correct data. Data tells us what happened; competent and merit-based people tell us why it happened. Data provides direction, but people make decisions. However, please remember this above all: where people do not speak, data remains silent as well; and where data is not questioned, mistakes grow larger. It is not enough for data to exist; organizations also need people with the ability to interpret it correctly, ask the right questions, and leaders who are willing to listen to those people and make courageous decisions based on their insights. That is why the real issue is not whether data or people matter more. The real issue is how effectively we manage both together. Stay well.