How you recognize matters more than what you know

3.1 Why more knowledge does not necessarily produce better judgment

For a long time, I assumed poor judgment generally meant insufficient knowledge. In sales, I tried to learn everything I could about a customer. What did they actually need? Who could decide? Where would the budget come from? Who were the competitors? Why had a project stalled? Management added sales figures, project progress, distributor feedback, competitors, market developments, even what someone left unsaid in a meeting. All could affect a decision.

It seemed natural that more knowledge should mean greater accuracy. Basic information is essential; without it, many judgments cannot even begin. So I habitually sought more before deciding. If uncertain, ask again. If unclear, investigate. If material was missing, fill the gap. I believed a sufficiently complete puzzle would reveal its own answer.

As my work and relationships became more complex, something troubled me. People could know much the same things and still reach very different conclusions. If missing information were the main cause, comparable information should produce comparable judgments. Often it did not. Sometimes more information produced more disagreement.

The same company and different problems

I spent a considerable period involved in the commercial operations of a manufacturing company. The figures looked good. Orders were growing, and the principal salespeople were performing well. The reports readily supported the view that the company was moving in the right direction.

My work brought me closer to the market and distribution channels. There I heard something else. Longstanding distributors were complaining. Brand marketing had never properly taken shape. Delivery problems kept recurring, and channel relationships were becoming strained. None of this was secret. Management, salespeople, and distributors knew about it. We attended many of the same meetings, saw the same figures, and heard the same feedback. Yet our assessments of the company increasingly diverged.

I was concerned about whether channel relationships could endure and whether the brand had established a real market foundation. Others focused on rising sales, growing orders, and the performance of key staff. Finance might focus on profit, the factory on capacity and delivery, and distributors on the stability of the rules. We faced the same company without necessarily examining the same problem.

Facts do not stand up and identify themselves as the most important ones. The difficulty is deciding what to use as the basis of a judgment. Shared information does not make that decision for us.