Failure Modes That Prevent Action
Feedback Loops, Part 3 - Nothing improves without clear decisive action
Jason Sich
Most organizations don't fail because they lack information. They fail because nothing changes when the information is bad.
Dashboards, reports, retros, KPIs. Organizations commit real time and money into building out these systems. But when no one acts on what they reveal, the return on investment is not zero. It's a negative. It's a growing cost with no corrective output. And this isn't a tooling problem, the tools work fine. The failure is what happens, or doesn't, after people look at them.
Failure Mode: Hypnosis of Data
Going back to the steamship analogy from Part 1, we looked at a ship going to Lisbon. If they don't keep the correct course they'll end up at a totally different destination. It's important for them to have things like a compass, sextant, charts, etc.. to ensure they stay on course.
Imagine a level of disorganization for the captain and crew where the compass is poorly maintained, which makes it hard to use. The sextant is never where it supposed to be kept. The charts are poorly maintained and are starting to rip.
These items are critical to navigation and therefore critical to reaching their goal. So the captain and crew, realizing the this cannot continue if they want to reach Lisbon, see to the care and upkeep of the items. They develop daily maintenance processes. They start keeping logs to keep everyone accountable. Everyone feels the difference this makes. The crew feels more productive.
But what if the captain only used these nicely maintained tools once every 3 days? They would get off course! Knowing that the compass has been cleaned 5 times in the last 5 days is not the same thing as knowing that you're 2 degrees off course. If they don't actually use the compass they won't be able to correct their course.
Each new point of focus in an organization is going to dilute the others. Trying to figure out what to do based on signals becomes unclear as you introduce more and more of them, especially when introducing ones that are indirectly linked to a goal.
Having clear signals that directly relate to your goal are what drive action and change.
It's exciting when you go from not having any data, to the point where you are starting to track everything. What's important to remember is that data is a means to an end, and not the end itself. Once you lose track of that, you start to lose the ability to take action.
The feeling of empowerment you get creating your first dashboards, reports, and KPIs is intoxicating. One moment you were totally blind to the world around you and now you can see everything. What get's lost at this point is that you shouldn't be trying to see "everything", but rather only the signals that give you the power to keep the course of your goal.
But data that doesn't help you evaluate outcomes (objective and goal linked) is noise that degrades the ability to take action. Each new data point imposes a tax on the organization to ensure that it's being collected and reported on accurately. Additionally, each new data point obscures other signals that are objective and goal-linked. At some point, you can no longer see the forest through the trees.
Each data point needs to be a signal that clearly points out if you are going to be able to achieve your end goals. Additionally, each member of the organization needs to know how that signal works, how it is linked to the end goal, and why you are tracking it. Once people know the value of a signal, they can change their actions to help improve it.
Failure Mode: Normalization of Failure
Familiarity breeds comfort. As an organization continually measures, reviews, and discusses signals on a regular basis there is a natural tendency to rationalize poor results. Why is this? There are two main causes, the first is just because it's part of our nature as humans and the second is from not intentionally developing a habit of taking action.
Favoring Comfort
People by their nature seek comfort. It's more comfortable to both give and listen to excuses than it is to hold people accountable for results. Additionally when seeking out why something is off track, you will receive easy to digest surface level reasons. These are really easy to just accept and move on from. For example suppose you hear the following for why a project is off track:
"I got pulled into 3 other projects this week and couldn't find time for this one"
Reasonable, right? But is it reasonable after hearing the same thing three weeks in a row? After hearing and accepting this three weeks in a row how comfortable is it to try to point out a problem?
The leadership team of an organization sets the values for their company in not only what they say, but also what they actually do. A leadership team that consistently rationalizes poor results is a leadership team that is setting comfort as a value. In this scenario it's hard to take any action that maybe uncomfortable.
Some failure in a project is expected. The issue is when the rationalization of results never stops. You're not going to perfectly hit every goal that you set out to do, but the moment you take the pressure off of trying to hit every goal is the moment you stop aiming for them and instead start rationalizing why it's ok to do so.
If the same signal shows up repeatedly and nothing changes, the loop is already dead.
Failure Mode: Stalling Out With Collectivism
In terms of efficiency and results nothing beats an empowered individual who has the right skills and believes in a mission & vision. When an organization sets out on a mission to accomplish their goals, they select a leader to take ownership of the effort. The leader has the responsibility to make the corrective actions in a feedback loop. But this all breaks down when the agency and authority of a leader is subverted by diluted responsibility.
How can that happen? Take the example of an organization that experiences harsh failure so it tries to mitigate all future failures by looping more people into decisions. The thought being that if they just had the right people in the room in the first place, that failure would not have occurred. This starts a new negative feedback loop, where there is reward for having the "right" people involved.
What ends up happening though is a weird form of collectivism. The organization can't move forward with any decision unless the right people have weighed in on it. Pair that with a set of leaders that aren't decisive in the first place and you end up with continually stalled progress.
Someone cannot be a leader without true authority and agency. Good leaders will ensure they collect the right feedback from the right people before making a decision. Lowering the bar for your worst leaders and adopting a process that removes responsibility and agency just leads to an ineffective and slow moving organization that struggles to take corrective actions.
How can you tell if you are in this is in this situation? There is a simple test. Ask yourself, could I just stop the entire project tomorrow? If you don't have the power to make such a change then you lack true responsibility and agency in your org.
Compounding Pain Instead of Results
These failure modes don't stay isolated. They compound. The more signals an organization tracks without acting on them, the easier it becomes to rationalize the ones going wrong. The more failure get rationalized, the less urgency anyone feels to make a decision. And the less any one particular person decides, the more people get pulled into the process to share blame. Clarity erodes, comfort sets in, and agency disappears. At that point, the organization isn't failing to act. It's forgotten that acting was ever the point.
Forced Response
What can break an organization out of hypnosis of data, the normalization of failure and the stall of collectivism? You need to force a response with clear outcomes, clear timelines and clear actions. The habit of decisive actions must be adopted and institutionalized.
Before you can do anything else you need to clarify your outcomes & goals. Additionally you need clear signals that directly relates to those outcomes and goals. You must know what you want and how to measure if you're getting it. This how you battle the hypnosis of data.
Next, set a threshold as a trigger for action. You can use metrics or dates for this, like "if {x} falls below" or "if {y} is not done by this date". You need to set a forcing function for action. When you combine clear signals with a threshold hold you help eliminate the rationalization that leads to the normalization of failure.
Lastly, commit to speed and action. High performing individuals and organizations don't wait around for things to happen, they take proactively take action themselves. Once you know that you're off track do everything you can to change course so that you can get back on track. Fight against the dull effects of collectivism by empowering the right individuals with responsibility and agency. Don't leave an option for others to easily de-rail someone charged with outcomes.
What these three responses share is simple. They remove the option to do nothing. Clarity forces you to see the problem. Thresholds force you to acknowledge it. And committed action forces you to respond. Organizations don't fail because the information isn't there. They fail because nothing in the system demands a response.
Comfort survives by keeping feedback and action optional.