When bad decisions come from missing information

My professional insights · Lyudmil Karaulanov · 5 min read

Published: 1 August 2026 · Version 1.0

“Why did no one tell me?” After an unpleasant surprise, this question is understandable. The person carrying responsibility made a decision using the information available. Later, it turns out that someone noticed the problem earlier.

In my view, the path taken by that information is more interesting than the question of who is to blame for the silence. What exactly did the employee know? Did they understand its significance? Whom could they tell, and what did they expect would follow? The answers may reveal why an important signal was left out of the decision even though people wanted to do their jobs well.

Recognising the significance of what you see

For one person, a customer's unusual request is an isolated sales conversation. For another, it may be an early sign of financial difficulty. An employee who sees only their own task does not always have the context to connect the two.

It helps when the team knows which changes are worth sharing, even before there is a firm conclusion. Concrete examples from the work are useful, rather than a general duty to “report everything important”.

Sometimes a person understands the significance but holds back. If a previous warning brought blame or an unmanageable additional task, their caution is understandable. This does not remove personal responsibility. But it also shows what needs to change in the way signals are received.

Whom can the information reach?

“Management” is not a sufficiently clear recipient. A specific person or established channel is needed, as well as another route if the line manager is part of the problem.

The matter may belong with operational management, human resources, the legal adviser or internal control. Clarity about who receives it, who investigates and who makes the next decision saves a great deal. Otherwise, several departments may each believe in good faith that someone else is already handling the case.

Room for an uncertain observation too

An early signal rarely arrives as complete proof. Someone may have noticed a deviation without knowing its cause. It helps if they can report it as exactly that, without being forced to accuse a colleague or disclose unnecessary personal details.

This requires distinguishing fact, assumption and opinion, appropriate confidentiality and a fair investigation. Receiving a report does not mean its contents have been proven. It means someone accepts responsibility for examining it.

What is lost as information travels upwards?

Sometimes information is sent on time but gradually smoothed over. Uncertainty disappears from the report, a condition becomes a promise, and a disputed issue is presented as settled. At each level, someone may simply have wanted to be brief or avoid creating unnecessary tension.

For me, a summary must retain precisely what affects the choice: what we know, what we do not know and what may change. A well-organised report also allows a return to the original observation.

How can we tell whether people are still contributing?

Recurring surprises, revised decisions and risks discovered late are reasons to examine communication. So is the point at which capable people continue to carry out their tasks but stop raising warnings and making suggestions.

I do not interpret every silence as disloyalty. A more useful question, to me, is what happened after the last difficult conversation. Did the person receive a response? Did they understand what was checked and why a particular decision was made?

Management is responsible for establishing this process. Honesty at work does not require everyone to know everything or reveal their private life. It requires material information to be able to reach someone who will consider it carefully.

Where is the point of instability?

What this concept means →

It lies in the break between what the organisation knows and the information on which management makes decisions. An organisation may have good specialists and abundant information, yet lack the connection between them.

A recent case examined without a predetermined verdict often provides a more useful starting point than yet another appeal for people to be more open. It shows what is needed to give them reason to speak up next time too.

This material is of a general analytical nature and does not constitute individual legal, tax, financial or investment advice.