Truth Drift™: How Accurate Information Loses Meaning on Its Way to Leadership
Truth Drift™ is the loss of meaning as information travels upward.
I introduced the term in The Data Trap after seeing the same thing happen in different organizations and different situations. Information would start close to the work with context, explanation, and details that mattered. As it moved through the organization, some of the original meaning disappeared. By the time it reached the people making the decision, they were looking at accurate information and still were missing something that would have changed the conversation.
That is Truth Drift™.
How meaning gets lost
Most information doesn't travel directly from the people doing the work to the people making the decisions. Someone closest to the work explains what is happening to a manager. The manager has a conversation with a director. The director summarizes it for a vice president. Eventually, some version of it reaches the executive team.
At each level, someone has to decide what matters. They know the person above them has limited time. They know what that person tends to ask about. They know which details will require more explanation and which ones fit cleanly into the conversation. So, they summarize what they believe the next person needs to know. Then the next level up does the same thing.
Nobody is hiding anything or manipulating the information intending meaning to disappear. Each person accurately communicates what they believe matters most, and the story still gets shorter as it moves.
A complicated staffing situation becomes a productivity result. A workaround becomes successful implementation. A concern raised on the floor becomes an issue being monitored. By the time the information reaches the executive team, the facts are accurate while the meaning that would have changed the decision is gone.
When accurate data still leaves something out
A department finishes the year with strong productivity and lower overtime. Based on those numbers, leadership reasonably concludes that the department performed well and uses that performance to establish expectations for the following year.
The director knows what it took to produce those numbers. People picked up additional shifts. Education was deferred. Managers covered weekends. Vacancies went unfilled while the team absorbed the work. The productivity number is still accurate. The context changes what that number means.
Now think about what happens as that information moves upward. The people closest to the work know what the year felt like. Their manager knows which shifts were difficult to cover and what had to be moved or delayed. The director knows the department hit its numbers because people absorbed things the operation didn't account for.
Then the year gets summarized. The details are condensed into what someone believes the next level needs to know, and that version gets summarized again. Eventually, leadership sees strong productivity and lower overtime.
Nothing in the report has to be wrong for the organization to reach the incorrect conclusion about what the operation can sustainably produce.
That is the danger of Truth Drift™.
Performance is produced long before it appears on a dashboard
Most performance conversations begin with the number. Overtime increased. Turnover moved. An initiative isn't producing the improvement everyone expected. By the time any of that reaches a dashboard, the work that produced it has already happened.
Leadership made decisions about priorities, staffing, resources, processes, technology, or expectations. Those decisions created conditions for the people doing the work. People adapted to those conditions and found ways to keep the work moving. Eventually, some part of what happened became the performance the organization could measure.
I think about it this way:
Leadership decisions → conditions → how people adapt → performance → measurement
The measurement sits at the end of the chain, but that is where performance conversations begin. Leaders are looking at the end of the performance chain while much of the information they need to explain it is traveling in the opposite direction.
Somewhere in that movement, meaning disappears.
When the dashboard and the work tell different stories
A dashboard says a department met its targets while the director says the performance isn't sustainable. A report shows that every required step in a process was completed while the people doing the work say the process created more work somewhere else. An initiative hits every implementation milestone while the performance problem that justified it is still there.
When that happens, I want to know what happened to the story on its way to the room.
What did the people closest to the work know? What did their manager hear? What did the director understand? What made it into the report? What reached the leadership meeting? What was lost as the information moved through each level?
The dashboard accurately describes the performance the organization measured. The people doing the work may understand what it took to produce that performance. The distance between those two versions contains information leadership needs to understand before making the next decision.
Why Truth Drift™ matters
The version that reaches leadership becomes the basis for another decision. Strong productivity becomes next year's baseline. Completion of every process step becomes evidence that the problem has been addressed. Successful implementation becomes justification for expanding an initiative. Another red metric leads to another round of training, accountability, process redesign, or technology.
Those decisions go back into the organization and create another set of conditions for the people doing the work. If important meaning disappeared before the problem reached leadership, the next decision is being made from a thinner version of what actually happened.
That helps explain why capable people spend considerable time addressing a performance problem and eventually find themselves dealing with it again. The organization responded to the problem as leadership understood it. Something that was producing the performance may never have made it into that understanding.
Four questions I use to reconstruct the story
When the number and the work don't seem to match, I use four questions:
What decision or priority set this in motion?
What conditions did it create?
How did people adapt to keep the work moving?
What remains in place to produce it again?
These questions work backward through the performance. The first takes the conversation toward what set the conditions in motion. The second looks at what those conditions meant for the people doing the work. The third makes visible the adaptations and workarounds that may have disappeared as the story traveled upward. The fourth asks what is still there after everything the organization has already done.
Much of the information leadership needs already exists somewhere in the organization. It just never reached the room with enough of its original meaning intact.
Truth Drift™ and The Data Trap
I introduced Truth Drift™ in The Data Trap as part of a larger problem I was seeing: having more data does not necessarily mean an organization understands more about what is happening.
Data can identify patterns, show changes over time, expose variation, and point leaders toward places that deserve attention. The difficulty comes when the information surrounding those measures loses meaning as it travels.
A number can remain accurate while the explanation behind it gets thinner. A frontline concern can become a sentence in a report, and a complicated operational reality can become a status indicator on a slide. At each step, someone has made a reasonable decision about what the next person needs to know. By the time the information reaches leadership, something that could have changed the conversation may no longer be there.
That is why the wording of Truth Drift™ matters. It is the loss of meaning as information travels upward.
When the same problem keeps coming back
When an organization has changed the process, added training, clarified accountability, introduced technology, or launched another initiative and the same performance problem returns, I want to know what is still producing it.
That is where my Organizational Performance Diagnostic begins. I look upstream of the metric at the leadership decisions, the conditions those decisions created, how people adapted to those conditions, and what leadership may not be able to see from the performance measures alone. The goal is to understand what is producing the performance before the organization commits to another solution.
There is also a seven-question online version for leaders who want to take a first look at their own organization.
If the dashboard and the people doing the work are telling you different things, I want to know what happened to the story on its way to the room.
Is the same performance problem still coming back?
The Organizational Performance Diagnostic helps healthcare leadership teams work backward from the performance they can see to understand the leadership decisions, organizational conditions, and adaptations that may still be producing it.
William Gulley, MBA, CEC, AIMC-CCAuthor of The Data TrapSpeaker | Executive Coach
I work with healthcare leaders and leadership teams to understand the decisions and organizational conditions producing the performance they're trying to change.
When the same problem keeps returning despite new processes, training, accountability, or another initiative, the question worth asking is what continues to produce it.
The Data Trap explores Truth Drift™ and what can happen when the information leaders use to make decisions loses meaning on its way to the room.
Comments