In every organization, two kinds of information coexist:
field information — imperfect, fragmented — and reporting information — clean, structured, reassuring.
The instinct is to trust reporting.
But it is field information that enables real control.
A perfect but false report is more dangerous than a true but incomplete signal.
-
Imperfect information reveals early drift
Field signals are never complete:
isolated comments, daily variations, partial observations.
But these raw signals reveal — long before dashboards — that a process is losing balance.
Imperfect does not mean weak.
It means early.
-
Perfect reporting freezes a reality that no longer exists
Over-polished reporting creates a stable picture:
smoothed trends, hidden anomalies, reinterpreted delays.
Filtered data describes yesterday, not today.
The more precise it looks, the more misleading it may be.
-
Imperfect information enables action; perfect reporting delays it
A raw signal allows immediate adjustment:
reordering a task, checking a step, redistributing workload.
A highly structured report pushes toward analysis, validation, hesitation.
Operations do not tolerate that delay.
Perfect precision costs more than quick correction.
-
Operational leadership requires courage, not comfort
Deciding from an imperfect signal feels risky.
Waiting for perfect data increases the risk:
the issue evolves silently while everyone waits.
Lost time is always more expensive than imperfect action.
Truth lies not in the format, but in the alignment between what the organization believes and what the field reveals.
Imperfect but true information is a tool.
Perfect but false reporting is a trap.