What this brings to mind is the oft-discovered-in-arrears delta between what someone thinks they know, and what they actually know. There is often an unrecognized gap -- sometimes built on inexperience, hubris, different planes of existence, or carelessness. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending upon your outlook, we often discover the gap through error.
How long will it take to complete a particular project or task? Unless you've personally performed the task before, have parallel experiences from which you can extrapolate, or have at your disposal a panel of experts who have personally performed this work or have parallel experiences from which to draw an aggregate postulate, you simply do not know with precision. You can however, surmise or posit a theory --- and this brings into conversation the idea of relative sizing. You may not know exactly how long something will take, but you know if it is larger or smaller than some other form of personally derived measurement and can then extrapolate, relatively. Of particular enjoyment to me, I watch with interest those people who are not actually involved in the situation and neither have direct experience, nor parallel experience, but cannot seem to help themselves from espousing what must surely be a correct estimate anyway. Gap, indeed!
What I tacitly know is built upon first-hand knowledge gained from personal experience. What I think I know is built upon extrapolation and/or perception referential to personal experience. There is a gap. When do I find out there is a gap?
This abstraction is likened to watching children grow. At early ages, when the ball disappears behind the couch, the child assumes it is gone. However, as the child ages, based upon aggregate data collected through personal experience in the past, he or she deduces that the ball must surely be behind the couch even though not visible. There is a gap. In order to eliminate the gap, one must first crawl behind the couch and find the ball thereby affirming the original deduction. Ball here. Ball gone. Crawl behind couch and see ball behind couch, or see someone pick up ball from behind couch and extrapolate. Now, the next time the ball rolls behind the couch, I know it is there even when I cannot see it. Done.
At what point did the child recognize there was a gap between what he saw and what he knew? Was it a choice or an accident to make this recognition? Was discovery of the ball behind the couch a by-product of curiosity or chance alone?
Let's go back to the London Tube. I did not recognize, nor give thought to the gap because I was pre-occupied with other goals, and working on a set of assumptions:
- I assumed I correctly knew how to move from platform to train;
- I assumed I correctly knew how to be safe whilst making the transfer;
- I correctly assumed I needed to board the train prior to departure; and
- I correctly assumed I needed to avoid getting caught in crowd congestion or door movement.
How often do people think they know something and fail to recognize there is a gap, perhaps canyon, between what they know and the way things actually exist? Unless we purposefully ask ourselves this question on a regular basis, we'll never know until we trip, fall through or get a foot stuck. More difficult for all involved is the fact that leaders often make decisions based upon what they think they know which may or may not match reality. This brings up two interesting observations:
- Given that leaders are often abstracted out from the ground-level line of work, it would be easy to feed a leader disinformation, falsity, or misrepresented facts in order to exploit the unrecognized gap; and
- Given that leaders are often abstracted out from the ground-level line of work, it seems logical there should exist one, preferably more than one, team member responsible for keeping the leadership accountable to reality.
Let me explain.
If there is a gap between what a leader thinks she knows and what she actually knows, until it is discovered or pointed out, she will make all forward moving decisions built upon the perceived information available in her mind. Seems like this gap may be a normal part of life, yes? Is the gap between reality and actuality, i.e. knowledge deficit, acceptable to you were a neuro-surgeon removing tumors from your brain? How about perceived versus actual altitude during a commercial jet landing? How about perceived versus actual facts while you're on trial for a crime you did not commit. Gaps are important. Whether we recognize them with immediacy is the criticality.
Flashback: What if during neuro-surgery a nurse pointed out that the tumor of interest was located at X and Y axis coordinates? Fact or fiction? Misinformation or disinformation? What if the surgeon modified his actions based upon the new information assuming that the nurse is likely more accurate? Or, what if the surgeon ignored the nurse? What we think we know and what we actually know should be questioned.
IF you were to argue that your job, responsibility or life were quite less impacting than that of a neuro-surgeon or commercial pilot OR that due to your own circumstance the binary decision to be exact is less relevant; THEN I argue you are negotiating shades of mediocrity with yourself -- which is yet another reason for accountability to the gap. Maybe you believe being inexact is okay; and maybe the guy who has to live with your world view and decision disagrees with you.
It is my opinion that all leadership requires accountability; not just for moral and ethical dilemmas, but also for corroborative fact-based assessment and decisioning. In fact, it is because of the gap between what we individually and collectively think we know versus the risk of a differing actuality that we should question leadership, decisions and direction. However, it is not just leadership that requires said accountability, but anyone with a supposition or opinion. Unless you crawled around behind the couch and personally verified that the ball is there, how do you know with unquestionably surety? Unless you can indisputably evidence that your perception is in fact reality, how can you confidently march forward in a care-free stride? How do you even have an argument?
There is a valid argument that we do not live long enough on this earth to personally verify everything, and that there are some things that we choose to accept as fact, whether through faith, extrapolation or juxtaposition of multiple elements.
The important thing to recognize is that there is a gap between what you think you know and what you actually know. Will you mind the gap in advance, or will it only be after you've missed the train or been run over by it?