What If Evidence Confirms the Wrong Story?
Imagine a plane flying through cloud, guided by three instruments that all indicate it is on course. The pilot trusts them because their readings agree. Yet all three depend on the same faulty reference signal. Agreement has created certainty without establishing direction.
As the plane moves off course, the instruments continue to confirm the pilot’s belief. Nothing contradicts the story because every reading reflects the same error. The instruments work, and their readings are genuine. This is exactly what happens in organisations.
When Evidence Becomes Confirmation
Evidence is often treated as a corrective to assumption. When results support a strategy, leaders take them as proof that their judgement was sound. Yet accurate evidence can answer a question that conceals the real problem. Reliable evidence does not guarantee a valid story.
A business may report rising customer acquisition, improving productivity, or stronger delivery against targets. Each measure may confirm that a transformation is working. Yet none reveals what may be deteriorating elsewhere. Correct answers can preserve a mistaken understanding.
How the Wrong Story Survives
The problem begins when an organisation decides what counts as evidence before questioning its interpretation. Measures are selected, patterns recognised, and exceptions explained within an existing narrative. Supporting observations become proof, while challenges seem peripheral. The story shapes what the organisation recognises as evidence.
This need not involve deliberate distortion. People may use sound data and reach reasonable conclusions within their own responsibilities. Yet shared assumptions can make contradictory signals difficult to connect. What appears to be independent confirmation may reproduce the same interpretation. A mistaken story grows resilient when the system keeps generating evidence in its favour.
What Evidence Cannot Tell Us
Evidence that confirms an observation does not necessarily establish its explanation. A result may show what happened without revealing why, or what else changed. The same outcome can support several explanations with different implications. Evidence gains strategic meaning through the interpretation that connects it to the whole.
A strategy may appear validated while its assumptions become less relevant, even as conditions for future success weaken. The danger is not simply a lack of information. Information can strengthen the interpretation that needs reconsideration. The deepest error may be a story that evidence has made difficult to question.
PREVIOUS ESSAY
NEXT ESSAY
Coming soon!