Feedback loops: how nature gets its rhythm and so should we
A useful ecological metaphor for the digital era...
In an era of digital and knowledge work, a better metaphor to how things work in an organization can be drawn from Ecology, with its complex adaptive systems (CAS) thinking. You don’t have to (only) trust my words on it, even because as Newton has famously said:
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
My personal biggest reference on this matter is Dave Snowden.
But why exactly Ecology and CAS should matter for how we go about organizations and work?
In a nutshell, here is my take on it (take it with a grain of salt, as I am not claiming to be an expert in the matter, but rather that I draw from it as an inspiration):
· It recognizes that a lot more goes on and that you can’t explicit manage (or control) everything. Which is a humbling experience.
· It acknowledges that there are underlying things which are always there (concept of ‘ubiquity’), but also that not always change happens in a direct fashion (concept of ‘obliquity’).
· More than “the system is bigger than the sum of its parts” (which is the metaphor we already have from system thinking), not only it accepts that interactions between agents or units are more relevant (that is also a logical conclusion from system thinking), it warns that the consequences can not only be contrary to the intention, but rather random and unpredictable and that even the smallest of change can propagate a huge impact (for the better or for the worse; concept often referred as “butterfly effect”).
How does that precisely go about in an ecological system then?
One of the keys both ‘ubiquitous’ as well ‘oblique’ mechanisms in nature is feedback loops. This is how nature gets its rhythm. It responds to internal and external influences, be it by reinforcing certain aspect (positive feedback loop) or counteracting some other (negative feedback loop), and through time will also learn and adapt accordingly (what is happening which is useful and what not…).
Getting a bit more practical, and I did promise that from beginning as a goal for this blog/newsletter, I could easily point out situations in my experience which would illustrate these ideas in practice, for the good or for the bad. I will choose to not do it now (may do it some other time) for the sake of time…
But here’s a list of some of the practices I have successfully implemented (meaning achieved good outcomes with) as a leader which ultimately are inspired by the trust in the power of feedback loops:
Regular 1:1’s: truth be told on this, as also Buckingham & Goodall advocate in their “Nine Lies About Work” (very recommended book), this goes deeper than the traditional notion of employee feedback with rather a notion of feedback loop founded on giving attention. (I personally have implemented a policy which suggests weekly as a cadence for this, but it could be slightly less frequent in a context which changes in somewhat slower pace.)
Workflow reflection mechanisms: again here, this goes deeper than the already somewhat traditional notion of retrospective. This is about putting a ‘mirror’ against the outcomes of our workflow (e.g., what we have accomplished when; how does that compare against what we intended to accomplish in the same period; plus, quantitative insights on our workflow system with ‘flow metrics’) and decisions around it. Much more data and facts oriented then how people feel (although there is a place for that too, to be clear).
“Thinking out loud”: full disclosure, I came across this defined as a kind of concept or mechanism rather recently, as I am (finally) reading L. David Marquet’s (former US Navy Captain) “Turn the Ship Around” (which I recommend as well as his other book, “Leadership is Language”), but I really liked that ‘framing’, hence decided to adopt it. The practice to me goes way longer though, as I always have been big on giving people context so that they can make better decisions being closer to the problems themselves. It’s what General McChrystal in his “Team of Teams” (another very recommended book) describes as shared consciousness.
There is also a couple of attempts which I made and don’t feel I quite “cracked” yet, but do feel they are relevant to the world we live in and the work we go about in it:
“Double down” on asynchronous: the more we work remotely (or digitally), the more this will be relevant. The key question is how to ‘nudge’ a behaviour in which people will feel compelled (for seeing the value) of sharing (more) quick updates in asynchronous fashion.
“Micronarratives” as a source for improvement: this is about getting more raw input as opposed to half-rationalized solutions as per one’s own perception. The latter is what you typically get when you ask input on what could be improved in the way we work, for instance. Put in other words, get insight on what people need as opposed to what they (seem to) want.
I hope this is useful to someone! And if anyone have any thoughts on how to go about the two still struggles I am having, from my attempts, or you can think of others we should discuss about; or simply have some feedback on this in general, I am really curious to learn about it.
‘See’ you next time!
P.S.: On a personal note, but also to point out this as something I have been experienced, I do credit, to a large extent, my success in adapting (perhaps even exaptation could be a way to look at it) to leadership in technology and digital context to my early training on environmental science. I have a BSc in Environmental Engineering.
by Rodrigo Sperb, feel free to connect (I only refuse invites from people clearly with an agenda to ‘coldly’ sell something to me), happy to engage and interact.