The Symptom
A defect or issue can be common knowledge on the ground and simultaneously absent from every formal record an organisation keeps — not because anyone is hiding it, but because the organisation’s own systems have no way to register it.
Consider an organisation where a recurring defect is well known on the shop floor and does not appear in any quality report.
What Leaders Usually Conclude
Faced with that gap between what is known informally and what is captured formally, the natural first assumption is concealment — staff choosing not to report something they should be reporting.
Why It Happens
In the case above, that assumption does not survive contact with what actually happened. The reporting category system has no heading the defect fits under. Staff tried logging it under the nearest available match, where it was closed as miscategorised. After that happened a few times, they stopped logging it — not out of concealment, but because the available channel had already demonstrated it could not accommodate what they were trying to report.
This connects to a distinction set out by Erik Hollnagel, Robert Wears and Jeffrey Braithwaite, in a white paper jointly published by the University of Southern Denmark, the University of Florida and Macquarie University, between how work is formally imagined and how it is actually done. Their argument is that things generally go well not because people strictly follow procedures as designed, but because people make sensible adjustments to the actual demands of a situation — and that organisations typically only discover the gap between the imagined and the actual version of their own work when something forces that gap into view. A reporting taxonomy is a particularly clean example of “work as imagined”: it encodes, in its category headings, an assumption about which kinds of problems exist. Whatever does not fit one of those headings does not stop existing — but the system’s record of it does.
The deeper implication is uncomfortable but important: a taxonomy does not just organise what is reported, it determines what is reportable in the first place. What has no category available to it effectively does not exist, from the point of view of anyone relying on the formal record rather than the shop floor itself.
This produces a specific and consequential failure mode worth naming directly: the absence of a report is routinely, and incorrectly, read as the absence of a problem. A quality report with no entries under a given category looks, to anyone reading it in good faith, like evidence that the category is under control. In a case like the one above, the correct reading is the opposite — the absence reflects a gap in the taxonomy, not a gap in the underlying issue. This is one of the more consequential misconceptions in operational reporting generally: a clean report is assumed to describe reality accurately, when it in fact describes only what the reporting system was built to see, which is a narrower and more specific thing.
There is also a tension worth acknowledging honestly. Taxonomies exist because unstructured reporting is difficult to aggregate, analyse, or act on at scale — a reporting system with no categories at all would be unusable for exactly the purposes a taxonomy serves well. The problem is not that categorisation exists; it is that categorisation, once built, is rarely revisited with the same rigour that went into building it in the first place, so genuinely new kinds of issues have nowhere to go until someone notices the gap directly, usually well after the issue itself has already become established.
What It Looks Like in Practice
An issue is common knowledge among the people closest to the work but is absent, or badly distorted, in the organisation’s formal reporting.
Staff have made a genuine attempt to report it through the available channel and were rebuffed or miscategorised, rather than never attempting to report it at all.
The gap tends to be interpreted as a compliance or culture issue before anyone checks whether the taxonomy itself has a place for the issue in question.
Leadership relies on the formal report as a complete account, without a mechanism for checking it against what is known informally.
A further consequence worth naming: this dynamic tends to be self-reinforcing over time. Each failed attempt to log an issue that has no home in the taxonomy teaches the people closest to the work that the formal channel does not work for this category of problem — which makes them less likely to attempt reporting the next genuinely new kind of issue that arises, whether or not it happens to fit an existing category. The taxonomy’s early gaps can, in this way, quietly train the workforce toward under-reporting more broadly, well beyond the specific issue that originally exposed the gap.
The same pattern appears across many kinds of organisation; see Other Sectors for how it is read elsewhere.
Questions worth considering
- What is common knowledge on the ground in this organisation that does not appear, or appears distorted, in any formal report?
- Has anyone actually tried to report it through the existing channel, and what happened when they did?
- What can the organisation’s current reporting categories simply not describe?
- What can this organisation’s reporting system not describe?
This perspective is part of Operations.
Your team is facing similar challenges?
Subscribe to The Riddle Ledger
Perspectives are sent as they are published, with no promotional email, and you can unsubscribe at any time.