/bks/images/image-o0b82.png)
I'm fascinated by the way people go in search of information - or don't, and what they do with it - or don't. Some people can never seem to have enough and always seek more, others seem to have it instantly at their fingertips - and are not afraid to use it.
We have this idea that information is useful and helpful - but that's not always the case. Information only really becomes useful and helpful when it 'informs', and so it has true value when it changes understanding or supports a decision. Otherwise, it is just data that may have been organised to some degree, but not yet useful.
The word itself is revealing. I use the idea that data becomes information when it is 'in ... formation' implying that it has been shaped, structured, formed, formatted, and presented in a way that can be understood and used. But that raises an immediate question: formed for whom?
Either way, there is increased cognitive effort for the person receiving it and trying to work with it.
And even when it is well-formed, what informs one person may not inform another. Experience, context, and even mood can determine whether something is genuinely useful or simply more 'stuff' to wade through. Which leads to a more practical question: How much information is enough?
There is a (rough) spectrum of decision-making styles, and most of us sit somewhere along the spectrum when it comes to using information.
At one end is the Analyst:
At the other end is the Decider:
These are not fixed personality types; they are more tendencies and most leaders move along this spectrum depending on the situation. But we do all have a natural leaning.
Herbert Simon’s idea of bounded rationality is useful here. He posited that we cannot process everything, and so we make decisions with limited information. His concept of 'satisficing', which involves choosing an option that is 'good enough' rather than optimal, recognises that in the real world, waiting for perfect information is rarely practical. A key difference between the Analyst and Decider, is where they feel that 'good enough' point is. There is no right or wrong, the tension is between two different perceptions of risk - bad decision vs no decision.
When deciding whether we have 'enough' information, we are usually balancing two costs:
Most people instinctively prioritise one of these over the other:
Neither is inherently right - or wrong, but problems arise when one cost is consistently ignored. An organisation that over-emphasises avoiding mistakes can become slow and hesitant. One that over-emphasises speed can create churn and instability.
More information does not always lead to better decisions. There is a point at which additional input stops improving understanding and even starts to hinder it. This can happen when:
At some stage, more information doesn’t improve the decision, it simply postpones it. And in fast-moving situations, information also has a kind of half-life; what was useful yesterday may be outdated today. Waiting for 'just one more piece' can mean acting on something that is already losing relevance.
General Colin Powel had an interesting view on this. He said that there is a point at which additional information stops improving the ultimate decision and starts to hinder it. His '40 to 70 % rule' (more of a guideline) states that you should make your decision when you have somewhere between 40% and 70% of the information you think you need. Less than that, and you are guessing. More than that, and you are likely waiting too long - the cost of delay tends to outweigh the benefit of increased certainty, and crucially, you rarely know you’ve reached 100%, so waiting for it is often illusory.
You are not aiming for the perfect decision, just one that is sufficiently informed to act. And that idea of 'sufficiently informed' is crucial - you still need that foundational 40%+ of good quality information.
The real issue is not how much information we have, it's whether the information we have is fit for purpose. Good information is:
It doesn't need to be perfect or complete. The same dataset can be valuable insight for one person and incomprehensible noise for another. The difference often lies in context, experience, and how the information is framed.
There is also a cognitive cost to consider. Too much poorly structured information creates friction. It slows people down, increases mental effort, and can lead to avoidance or procrastination. In that sense, excess information behaves a lot like any other organisational irritation - it subliminally erodes effectiveness over time.
In teams, the analyst-decider spectrum can, and often does, generate friction as the analyst asks for more and more data and the decider just wants to get on with things and move forward. Left unmanaged, this can become a source of irritation. But handled well, it can be a significant strength:
Together, they can create a more balanced approach, provided each (deciding style) recognises the value that the other brings as well as the risks their own style presents. The issue is rarely the presence of both, but occurs when one view is dismissed or consistently dominates. High-performing teams tend to develop an implicit understanding of when to lean more one way or the other, but recognise the value of both approaches.
For leaders, the challenge is less about gathering more information and more about recognising when enough is enough.
A few simple questions can help:
These are about bringing awareness to the trade-offs, and not about forcing speed or caution.
In many organisations, there isn't a lack of information. The issue is recognising information for what it is, what it needs to be, and what it needs to do - which is to change understanding and inform decision making.
Some cultures reward thoroughness and analysis, others reward decisiveness and action. Only a few consciously balance the two. So, our management and leadership skill is less about gathering more information, and instead recognising the moment when information has done what it needs to do - informed, so that a confident judgement can be made, followed by a decision - and then action and a move forward.
Ad Futurum
Graham