Feedback Loops: A Key Enabler to Change Systems

In my previous post on every system being perfectly designed to get the results it gets, I felt like there was one element I alluded to in my practical example, but that I could have given more credit. Given how critical it can be for the whole matter.

So let’s circle back to it, by restating that perceiveing a gap between the results we are getting and what in principle we thought we should be getting is the starting observation. In which the next step, the doing something about it, will depend upon: making that fact more transparent and visible.

In other words, we need to call things as they are, while not being judgmental about it, and figure out a way forward: we need B (intention), we are getting A (reality), what’s the path for making those get closer?

But it’s not like just stating it makes anything better. Often not – and in fact, stating alone might as well be part of the problem, because it may be perceived as yet just another something mentioned but that, in the end, no one (or at least not enough people) really takes seriously.

You may think otherwise, but people easily intuitively learn the rules of the game in a system. And if there are often things which are said and not sufficiently followed through, chances are people will not change any behavior because history has taught them that the system will likely just move on from it in due time.

So if we need something to stick, the best chance we got is to design properly feedback loops which will reinforce the message that is better aligned with helping to close the perceived gap between intention and reality. Now, feedbacks loop alone are often just the signal – if not truly acted upon, it will fall short. But it’s a crucial element of getting it right.

Just like the example I used last time – If progress is mostly defined (be it tacitly) by the amount of work planned, but no real feedback loop to understand what is actually done at the end of the period, then no surprise you end up with some gap of “keeping your promises” (for the lack of a better way to put it).

The system, in the end, operated just like it was designed. The problem might be exactly there: you didn’t even know for sure that was the design (the rules of the game, the incentives in place, etc.).

But at the moment you make a point of following up lagging metrics such as lead time, and even importantly early indicators like WIP and aging of items (at whatever level you are trying to improve), you start getting a bigger chance for real change in behavior. The mirror is there, the ‘nudging’ can be real, and it can be as easy as the bit of discomfort that emerges from making the signal visible.

Because at the end of the day, most of us want to be reminded as doing a good job, as being proud of what we’ve accomplished.

The bit of uncertainty that will still be there is how much value is put into that. Like I said – the feedback alone won’t be the full trick, but it’s a crucial step into a better direction. Without it, we are somewhat flying blind or at least without instruments – we might still eventually make things better mostly through randomness and luck, but we are always better off when building on that foundation (of feedback loops).

I will be off for summer holidays pretty much across the month of July, so don’t expect new posts to come about here. I will be visiting my home country, Brazil, after a number of years – so I want to make the best of it!

I might schedule some reposting of previous pieces to keep with the cadence – after all, it’s often good to remind ourselves of stuff.

By Rodrigo Sperb, feel free to connect, I’m happy to engage and interact. I’m passionate about leading to achieve better outcomes with better ways of working. How can I help you?