Organizations, teams and people often emphasize and only report the measure of central tendency and ignore the measure of dispersion primarily due to two reasons
a) Low Statistical literacy and b) Unethical behaviour
A person in the organisation with low or no Statistical literacy would not know that ‘Standard deviation’ all alone is meaningless without context, and it must be considered relative to the mean (For instance, a standard deviation of 100 could be large if the mean is 100 but small if the mean is 1 billion).
Similarly, such individuals may may not recognise that the simplest numerical measure of dispersion in a data set that he/she is dealing with is the range. Instead, a range would be looked at potential capability of the team or the process. For example: Assuming every employee can match the performance of the best 1 out of 1000 employees (e.g., Mr. ABC with 5% errors, minimum or Mr. XYZ with INR 1M sales, maximum).
Average is looked at the ‘favourite number’ as its easier to understand and communicate to a broader audience, compared to dispersion measures like standard deviation or interquartile range.
Unethical behaviour can be the second reason, where people wilfully choose an inappropriate summary measure (for example, reporting the mean for a very skewed set of data without any measures of dispersion) to distort the facts to support a particular position.
Here is an example of reporting the measure of central tendency and ignoring the measure of dispersion and how did it adversely impact decision making
In Banking, Tele sales executives are responsible for generating revenue overphone,they are given tele calling data base in spreadsheets, while data analytics team would have segmented the clients basis various criteria. However, client allocations are rarely random.
In most tele calling teams, the average is looked at as a metric and the highest among the tele calling executives are rewarded .
From the below table it looks like Agent B has the highest revenue average and also the total but the standard deviation is the highest fo B .Upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that Agent B is capitalizing on a loophole by focusing excessively on affluent clients, who tend to have higher credit card limits and larger loan eligibility amounts.
Had measures of dispersion like standard deviation been reported alongside the mean, these suspicions would have been triggered earlier & such unethical practises may not have continued to distort the facts to support a particular position which in this example is about the loophole of calling & engaging with Affluent clinets disproportionately.
This highlights the importance of considering measures of dispersion like standard deviation alongside central tendency metrics. Failure to do so can lead to poor decision-making, unfair rewards, and overlooked systemic issues
Category
Agent A Revenue (INR)
Agent B Revenue (INR)
Avg
498.85
525.85
Stdev
6.682853157
36.64664126
Total
9977
10517
Count of General clients engaged
16
6
Count of Affluent clients engaged
4
14
Daily performance of A and B
Day
Agent A Revenue (INR)
Agent B Revenue (INR)
Agent A Client Type
Agent B Client Type
1
503
592
General
Affluent
2
499
527
Affluent
General
3
505
539
General
Affluent
4
511
482
General
Affluent
5
498
515
General
Affluent
6
498
540
General
Affluent
7
511
492
General
General
8
505
550
Affluent
Affluent
9
497
513
General
Affluent
10
504
525
General
General
11
497
513
General
Affluent
12
497
606
Affluent
General
13
502
535
Affluent
General
14
487
496
General
Affluent
15
488
567
General
Affluent
16
496
490
General
Affluent
17
493
544
General
Affluent
18
502
462
General
General
19
494
486
General
Affluent
20
490
543
General
Affluent