There are two schools of thought regarding how truthful the information from the man on site can be. One school follows Winston Churchill: “Never trust the man on the spot“. Another school believes that local knowledge offers sometimes a better insight than what is available in headquarters.
What’s the right way about this? It’s all about what information we want to have.
Information about the actual progress and the actual situation on the ground is best retrieved from site. Far-away management does not work and leads to unrealistic assessments of the situation. I observe this effect all too often in large projects.
On the other hand, do not expect the site people to have a very worthwhile assessment of the whole strategic or even tactical picture. They can only have a limited view of the whole due to their position. The breadth of the subjects they can apprehend depends on their scope. Local representatives in a particular country will often have a much better assessment of the political situation of that entire country and what can or cannot be done than the global headquarters. A local representative on a site can only apprehend very local issues. In general I have observed that often the local representative can be trusted on a scope slightly larger than his assignment.
In general, I tend to trust more the people on site except if the topic is clearly beyond their observation range.
Churchill quote from H. R. McMaster Dereliction of Duty (a recommended read about how the US politicians and top military got embroiled in the Vietnam war)
