What Do We Actually Know?

Working in collaboration with others is especially effective when we can rely on what we tell each other about matters related to the work. When we're imprecise in what we say, those who rely on what we've said are more likely to reach incorrect conclusions that can lead to delays and expensive rework. For example, when Joyce asks James whether the meeting addressed the question of delays in Joyce's work, James does Joyce a disservice if he tries to "smooth over" some of the complaints he heard about Joyce's delayed efforts. She might not realize how urgent it is for her to complete her work, and that can harm the team's efforts.

Below is a little catalog of ways we acquire knowledge in everyday work life. Some are less reliable than others.

I saw it/heard it myself

Seeing with your own eyes, or hearing with your own ears, might seem to be the best way to acquire actual knowledge. But over the past 70 years or so, psychology researchers have uncovered an array of phenomena that distort our perceptions. Certainly some of the data we take in is definitive, but not all of it is.

Be careful about how you interpret what you perceive.

Someone told me

With respect to reliability, the word of other witnesses is second only to witnessing the events yourself. But since witnesses are subject to phenomena that distort perceptions, what they report is also affected. And their ability to articulate what they witnessed is imperfect. Imperfect also is our own ability to gather and interpret the reports of first-hand witnesses.

Relying on the Do we actually have knowledge and
expertise sufficient for forming
the conclusions we've reached?reports of others can extend your ability to gather information about the world around you. But the information you gather that way can be less reliable than what you gather from direct, personal observation. When you pass this information along to others, take care to also note who provided it to you.

I deduced

If we have sufficient knowledge and expertise, we can often deduce novel and important conclusions from what we or others observe. But an open question remains: do we actually have knowledge and expertise sufficient for forming the conclusions we've reached? Is our deduction correct?

When considering questions of human motivation or interpersonal dynamics, deciding whether our knowledge or expertise is sufficient can be difficult indeed. Apply the rule of three: If you can't think of three different conclusions that could be drawn from the data you have, keep thinking. [Weinberg 1993]

I searched for it but I couldn't find it

Unsuccessful searches for things or information are frequently cited as proof of nonexistence. They are no such thing. An unsuccessful search is merely evidence that the search produced a null result. Perhaps the search technique was faulty. Perhaps the searcher misapplied the search technique.

The question of awareness is a related misinterpretation. It is risky to conclude that something didn't occur just because "I would know about it" if it did. Beware making faulty conclusions on the basis of searches that produced null results.

I recall

Recall — reconstructing data from memory — is a notoriously unreliable process. Yet we rely on it nevertheless. We use recall, for example, to determine who said what to whom, and when they said it. And we use recall even when we have access to records that are far more reliable. We do so probably because recall is so much more convenient compared to locating recordings or written records.

In high-stakes controversies, relying on recall alone is risky. The main advantage of recall is convenience. Use recall to provide guidance to accelerate searches through records and recordings. Use records and recordings for evidence.

That's the way it works/used to work/always has worked

When explaining the results of a procedure, we necessarily apply what we know about how the procedure normally works. For example, with respect to a search that failed to find a version of an important document from an effort that was completed last year, we might "know" that all approved versions would have been archived and sealed. The failure to locate the version we wanted might then mean that it was never approved. But failure to locate it could also happen if the document file was misnamed.

Things don't always work they way we believe they do. Keep an open mind when interpreting the results of formal procedures and automated tools.

I asked them and they never heard of it/don't know about it

This comment is logically equivalent to a failed search, where the field being searched is the knowledge of other people. What distinguishes this approach is that it implicitly invokes the authority of the people whom the searcher consulted. Without saying so, the searcher is implying that if these authoritative people don't have the information, the information must not exist.

There are two problems with this tactic. First, the people consulted might not actually be authoritative. And second, the stature of the people being consulted might not be accepted or appreciated by the people to whom the searcher conveys the result.

Last words

When we examine carefully what we know and what we don't know, we're likely to find that what we know is far less than we expected, and what we don't know is far more than we expected. At least, that's been my experience. But what do I know?  Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Conflict Management:

See No Bully, Hear No Bully

Supervisors of bullies sometimes are unaware of bullying activity in their organizations. Here's a collection of indicators for supervisors who suspect bullying but who haven't witnessed it directly.

Agenda Despots: I

Many of us abhor meetings. Words like boring, silly, and waste come to mind. But for some meeting chairs, meetings aren't boring at all, because they fear losing control of the agenda. To maintain control, they use the techniques of the Agenda Despots.

Red Flags: I

When we finally admit to ourselves that a collaborative effort is in serious trouble, we sometimes recall that we had noticed several "red flags" early enough to take action. Toxic conflict and voluntary turnover are two examples.

Joint Leadership Teams: OODA

Some teams, business units, or enterprises are led not by individuals, but by joint leadership teams of two or more. They face special risks that arise from the organizations that host them, from the team they lead, or from within the joint leadership team itself.

Commenting on the Work of Others

Commenting on the work of others risks damaging relationships. It can make future collaboration more difficult. To be safe when commenting about others' work, know the basic principles that distinguish appropriate and inappropriate comments.

See also Conflict Management and Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info