Eight to Late

Sensemaking and Analytics for Organizations

The unspoken life of information in organisations

with 5 comments


Many activities in organisations are driven by information. Chief among these is decision-making : when faced with a decision, those involved will seek information on the available choices and their (expected) consequences. Or so the theory goes.

In reality, information plays a role that does not quite square up with this view. For instance, decision makers may expend considerable time and effort in gathering information, only to ignore it when making their choices.  In this case information plays a symbolic role, signifying competence of the decision-maker (the volume of information being a measure of competence) rather than being a means of facilitating a decision. In this post I discuss such common but unspoken uses of information in organisations, drawing on a paper by James March and Martha Feldman entitled Information in Organizations as Symbol and Signal.

Information perversity

As I have discussed in an earlier post, the standard view of decision-making is that choices are based on an analysis of their consequences and (the decision-maker’s) preferences for those consequences.  These consequences and preferences generally refer to events in the future and are therefore uncertain. The main role of information is to reduce this uncertainty.  In such a rational paradigm, one would expect that  information gathering and utilization are consistent with the process of decision making.  Among other things this implies that:

  1. The required information is gathered prior to the decision being made.
  2. All relevant information is used in the decision-making process.
  3. All available information is evaluated prior to requesting further information.
  4. Information that is not relevant to a decision is not collected.

In reality, the above expectations are often violated. For example:

  1. Information is gathered selectively after a decision has been made (only information that supports the decision is chosen).
  2. Relevant information is ignored.
  3. Requests for further information are made before all the information at hand is used.
  4. Information that has no bearing on the decision is sought.

On the face of it, such behaviour is perverse – why on earth would someone take the trouble to gather information if they are not going to use it?  As we’ll see next, there are good reasons for such “information perversity”, some of which are obvious but others that are less so.

Reasons for information perversity

There are a couple of straightforward reasons why a significant portion of the information gathered by organisations is never used. These are:

  1. Humans have bounded cognitive capacities, so there is a limit to the amount of information they can process. Anything beyond this leads to information overload.
  2. Information gathered is often unusable in that it is irrelevant to the decision that is to be made.

Although these reasons are valid in many situations, March and Feldman assert that there are other less obvious but possibly more important reasons why information gathered is not used. I describe these in some detail below.

Misaligned incentives

One of the reasons for the mountains of unused information in organisations is that certain groups of people (who may not even be users of information) have incentives to gather information regardless of its utility. March and Feldman describe a couple of scenarios in which this can happen:

  1. Mismatched interests: In most organisations the people who use information are not the same as those who gather and distribute it. Typically, information users tend to be from  business functions (finance, sales, marketing etc.) whereas gatherers/distributors are from IT. Users are after relevant information whereas IT is generally interested in volume rather than relevance. This can result in the collection of data that nobody is going to use.
  2.   “After the fact” assessment of decisions:  Decision makers know that many (most?) of their decisions will later turn out to be suboptimal. In other words,   after-the-fact assessments of their decision may lead to the realisation that those decisions ought to have been made differently. In view of this, decision makers have good reason to try to anticipate as many different outcomes as they can, which leads to them gathering more information than can be used.

Information as measurement

Often organisations collect information to measure performance or monitor their environments. For example, sales information is collected to check progress against targets and employees are required to log their working times to ensure that they are putting in the hours they are supposed to. Information collected in such a surveillance mode is not relevant to any decision except when corrective action is required. Most of the information collected for this purpose is never used even though it could well contain interesting insights

Information as a means to support hidden agendas

People often use information to build arguments that support their favoured positions. In such cases it is inevitable that information will be misrepresented.  Such strategic misrepresentation (aka lying!) can cause more information to be gathered than necessary. As March and Feldman state in the paper:

Strategic misrepresentation also stimulates the oversupply of information. Competition among contending liars turns persuasion into a contest in (mostly unreliable) information. If most received information is confounded by unknown misrepresentations reflecting a complicated game played under conditions of conflicting interests, a decision maker would be curiously unwise to consider information as though it were innocent. The modest analyses of simplified versions of this problem suggest the difficulty of devising incentive schemes that yield unambiguously usable information…

As a consequence, decision makers end up not believing information, especially if it is used or generated by parties that (in the decision-makers’ view) may have hidden agendas.

The above points are true enough. However, March and Feldman suggest that there is a more subtle reason for information perversity in organisations.

The symbolic significance of information

In my earlier post on decision making in organisations I stated that:

…the official line about decision making being a rational process that is concerned with optimizing choices on the basis of consequences and preferences is not the whole story. Our decisions are influenced by a host of other factors, ranging from the rules that govern our work lives to our desires and fears, or even what happened at home yesterday. In short: the choices we make often depend on things we are only dimly aware of.

One of the central myths of modern organisations is that decision making is essentially a rational process.  In reality, decision making is often a ritualised activity consisting of going through the motions of identifying choices, their consequences and our preferences for them.  In such cases, information has a symbolic significance; it adds to the credibility of the decision. Moreover, the greater the volume of information, the greater the credibility (providing, of course, that the information is presented in an attractive format!). Such a process reaffirms the competence of those involved and reassures those in positions of authority that the right decision has been made, regardless of the validity or relevance of the information used.

Information is thus a symbol of rational decision making; it signals (or denotes) competence in decision making and that the decision made is valid.


In this article I have discussed the  unspoken life of information in organisations –  how it is used in ways that do not square up to a rational process of decision making. As March and Feldman put it:

Individuals and organizations invest in information and information systems, but their investments do not seem to make decision-theory sense. Organizational participants seem to find value in information that has no great decision relevance. They gather information and do not use it. They ask for reports and do not read them. They act first and receive requested information later.

Some of the reasons for such “information perversity” are straightforward: they include, limited human cognitive ability, irrelevant information, misaligned incentives and even lying!  But above all, organisations gather information because it symbolises proper decision making behaviour and provides assurance of the validity of decisions, regardless of whether or not decisions are actually made on a rational basis.  To conclude: the official line about information spins a tale about its role in rational decision-making but  the unspoken life of information in organisations tells another story.

Written by K

June 14, 2012 at 5:55 am

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I love it! (again)
    Besides the identification and the dropping of the phantasma of rationality, which is so deeply inhuman and against any humanity, hence contradictory apriori to any pragmatics, your uncovering of the structure of the “information behavior” is very nice, indeed.
    Your turn to recognize the symbolization of an immaterial entity (information, behavior) is cool. It confirms the insight of philosophers, that symbolization processes can’t be controlled (fortunately). Yet, in this case, it results in a rather serious investment just for establishing some macho display :)) …ok, not completely “macho”, since today organizations need people (or machines?) that are able to sift through the bulk quickly.
    Your looking behind the mirror has almost Wittgensteinian qualities ! You know, for him, meaning was there only through the use of a word in the context of story-telling, whether implicit or explicit.

    Concerning information and its use I would like to add to your gem another critique: Data mining and Data Analysts are things that are not possible. Every kind of interpretation is a construction, guided by a layer-cake of unspoken rules that are implemented in an organization (I call this phenomenon “orthoregulation”, because these rules have nothing to do with the business, at least not directly)
    Else I woiuld like to point to an article about the proper use of the concept “information”:

    thanks again, was really fun to see that!



    June 25, 2012 at 2:22 am

    • Hi Monnoo,

      Thanks for reading and for your very interesting comment.

      I have found James March’s articles (one of which this post is based on) to be very helpful in understanding how organisations really work, especially in the areas of decision-making, information and learning.

      Quite apart from the issues noted in the post, It is my opinion that organisations use but a small fraction of the data and information “assets” they possess. The rest serves only as cyber-fodder to fill the terabytes of disk space so readily available to them.

      Your words about data mining / analysis got me thinking about how much of what we do in organisation-land do operates via rules that have little relation to the objectives of the organisation. I think the answer is – quite a lot!

      Thanks again for reading – I’m truly glad you enjoyed the piece!





      June 26, 2012 at 5:13 am

  2. Not sure if we’re saying here that all decisions should be rational (ie left-brained, made on the basis of gathered data)? I personally also value intuition, instinct and emotion when making decisions, and believe that balancing the head with the heart makes for better decision making in business as in life. Using head only is akin to using only 10% of the intelligence available to us. That said, I appreciate that some decisions (ie recruitment in the public sector) might need to come down to elaborate scoring grids rather than intuition, for litigation avoidance reasons :-]


    Martine Bolton

    June 26, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    • Hi Martine,

      Thanks for making an excellent point. Indeed, intuition plays an important role in decision making, especially when there is uncertainty and a lack of information (which includes pretty much all strategic decisions). My intent in the present post was not to downplay the role of intuition but rather to highlight the “secret life” of information in organisations: how it is really used, often in ways that do not square up to the story according to decision theory.

      That said, even when a decision is based on intuition, it is usually possible to improve the quality of the decision by using deliberative techniques. I’ve discussed this point a length in this post.

      Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment.





      June 26, 2012 at 10:02 pm

  3. […] way.    I have discussed this “information perversity” at length in my post on entitled, The unspoken life of information in organisations, so I won’t  rehash it here.  Alvesson and Spicer point out that information perversity is a […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: