One of the most costly mistakes in the world of management is not a mistake in strategy, product or execution. It happens much earlier, at the stage when information reaches the decision-makers.
On the surface, everything is working properly: the data has been collected, the reports have been written, the presentations have been prepared, and the managers sit around the table to make a decision. But along the way, something small has happened. The facts have become mixed with interpretation. And when that happens, the entire process of decision-making changes.
The one word that can bring down organizations
The story of the spies presents one of the most fascinating examples of this kind of leadership failure. Rabbi Yitzchak Arama, author of Akeidat Yitzchak, explains that the spies did not sin by describing real difficulties. The cities were indeed fortified, the nations were strong and the challenge was great. Nor was there anything wrong with presenting a complex picture. The problem began the moment they stopped fulfilling their original role.
Moses sent them to gather information. He wanted to understand reality. In modern terms, they were sent to serve as an intelligence unit, not an investment committee. But at a certain point, the spies moved from describing the data to interpreting its meaning.
The word “but” changed everything: The land is good, but, the people are strong.
On the surface, it was only one word. In practice, it was the turning point. This, Rabbi Yitzchak Arama explains, is the root of the failure. As long as the spy fulfills his mission and describes what he saw, he serves the decision-maker. But the moment he begins explaining what should be done with the information he collected, he replaces the one who sent him.
He is no longer the eyes of the leader, but another voice in the discussion. It may seem like a small difference, but in fact it is a sharp transition between describing reality and trying to shape it.
Rabbi Yitzchak Arama does not criticize the information brought by the spies, but the role they took upon themselves. Moses did not ask them to decide whether to enter the land, but to understand it. From the moment they became policy-shapers rather than bearers of information, the leadership’s ability to see reality clearly was damaged.
This is a lesson many managers know well: The more hands information passes through, the greater the temptation to add the conclusion to it.
This principle is more relevant today than ever. In modern organizations, information flows constantly: reports, presentations, market surveys, forecasts and performance indicators. The problem is usually not a lack of information, but the fact that the information arrives already wrapped in meaning. The data itself is correct, the facts are accurate, but attached to them are the fears, preferences and conclusions of the person who collected them. In such a situation, it becomes difficult to know where reality ends and interpretation begins.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant dealt with exactly this point when he distinguished between reality itself and the way human beings perceive it. A person, he argued, does not encounter the world as it is, but through a system of interpretations, assumptions and mental filters. The more certain a person is that he is presenting “only facts,” the greater the chance that he is actually presenting the way he chose to understand them.
Aristotle, whom the author of Akeidat Yitzchak often quotes in various places, also saw judgment as one of the most important virtues of a leader. In his view, practical wisdom is not only knowing what is right to do, but first of all understanding reality accurately before rushing to draw conclusions from it. Leadership begins with clarity.
Over the years, I have found that even in healthy and well-managed organizations, the line between information and interpretation tends to blur. In fundraising processes, acquisitions, strategy discussions and board meetings, people present data and, in the same breath, the conclusion they have reached. Not out of an intention to mislead, but because that is how the organizational culture has developed.
In hindsight, I know that I did not always insist on defining this distinction clearly enough. In the name of empowering managers and giving them independence, I often allowed reality-reflection and operative recommendation to be mixed together. When we do not define in advance what we are asking to receive — information, analysis or recommendation — there is no reason to be surprised when everything arrives together.
This week, various assessments were published regarding Nofar Energy’s stock and its future potential. The rise in the share price is a fact. The assessment that there is still significant potential for further gains is already interpretation. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the reader knows where the reporting ends and the assessment begins. In fact, that distinction is what makes it possible to make informed decisions.
In the song “Without Masks,” I wrote:
“There are secrets in me without accounts
I have hidden powers asking to rise and be revealed”
Perhaps that is also the task of leadership: to remove the masks from information. To allow the facts to rise as they are, before they are colored by fears, preferences and premature conclusions.
Great leaders do not only look for better answers. They insist first of all on receiving a cleaner picture of reality. They know that a quality decision begins with a clear separation between what we saw and what we think about what we saw.
Because in the end, quite a few management failures do not begin with a lack of information. They begin at the moment when interpretation disguises itself as fact, and no one can tell the difference anymore.