The Leadership Discipline of Short Feedback Loops
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the impact of feedback loop timing in work systems. For example, sometimes in our haste to adjust a plan that’s not working, roll out a new campaign, or implement a new application we get caught up in the unveiling…and forget to plan for a lessons learned session.
Unnecessarily delayed or completely missed feedback loop opportunities show up in little and big ways in our personal lives, too. For example, one of my family members suffered a stroke in his mid-40s, but might have avoided this health event if he had gone to the doctor annually for wellness visits. The blood pressure checks and conversations with a doctor about recurring headaches at those nonexistent visits would have been an early signal feedback loop that could have caused important behavioral change, and/or the resourcing of additional system elements (e.g., medication to manage high blood pressure) to improve outcomes.
What about you? Have you ever made what felt like a completely reasonable decision (e.g., I don’t need to go to the doctor because I feel pretty good and I’m only in my mid-40s)…only to realize later that it didn’t produce the outcome you expected?
Of course at first, nothing seemed obviously wrong. Then, slowly, friction crept in or goals were missed. As the old saying goes, the frog doesn’t necessarily feel himself being cooked in a pot of slowly boiling water (compared to being thrust into an already boiling pot of water).
Why Early Signals Matter
I recently read the book Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows, and her commentary about the role of feedback loops has been sticking with me.
Feedback loops in systems sound technical, but don’t have to be. Really, a feedback loop is just the signal that tells us whether what we’re doing is working, and how quickly we’re able to see that signal. Without that early and honed signal, it’s hard to decipher progress or problems from the otherwise sporadic noise.
Meadows uses a simple bathtub example that I’ll describe below that makes this click.
Imagine a bathtub with water flowing in from the faucet and draining out below. The water level in the tub is what you care about…that’s what she calls the “stock.” The faucet and the drain are the “flows.”
If you turn the faucet up too high but don’t notice right away, the tub overflows. And, if the drain is open more than you realize and you don’t see it, the water level slowly drops.
The key isn’t just the flows. It’s how quickly you see the water level changing, and whether you make adjustments in time.
In organizations, our “water level” might be:
Team capacity
Lead flow
Campaign performance
System adoption
Morale
And our “flows” might be:
New requests
Budget changes
Process tweaks
Tool implementations
Strategic pivots
The challenge? We often don’t see the real signal until much later because we’ve failed to consider an opportunity for early enough feedback loops in our system.
And if we wait too long, we’re reacting…not steering toward the outcomes we desire.
When the Signal Arrives Too Late
Let me give you a real-world example. In one engagement, I worked with a marketing team inside an organization where the perception floating around the leadership table was that the marketing team was inefficient.
From the outside, it looked like inefficiency. From inside the system, something else was happening.
Requests were coming in from multiple departments (of course, that’s normal for a marketing team). Inputs were inconsistent and non-standardized. Decision rights regarding prioritization of tasks were fuzzy. Some leaders external to the department were embracing new organizational project management norms; others were bypassing them entirely.
The marketing team was absorbing the variability. And because there wasn’t a clear, shared “water level” — a visible, trusted source of truth regarding all the flows in and out of the system — the only delayed feedback leadership saw was frustration from others about the delay being experienced.
And, the marketing team’s reality looked like this:
Request made
Work begins (sometimes missing key inputs)
Friction occurs
Deadlines shift
Leadership perceives inefficiency
But what was missing? Well, earlier feedback signals.
So, we doubled down on the single source-of-truth project management tool that the organization was backing, and started calling it a “neutral witness.” Not to control people. Not to police work or performance. But to shorten the feedback loop in a consistent, standardized way.
Then, we could see:
Where requests were incomplete
Where approvals were lagging
Where work was being reworked due to late-stage changes
Where “surprise” work surfaced and displaced previous priorities
Where capacity was already full before a “quick ask” arrived
The perception began to shift, and not because the team suddenly worked harder or cared more. But rather, because the feedback loop got shorter and insights were gleaned from early signals to inform adjustments across all teams…including marketing.
Why This Matters More Than We Think
Here’s the uncomfortable part: some systems don’t break because people aren’t trying. They strain because feedback loops are delayed or nonexistent.
When feedback arrives weeks (or months) after a decision, it’s incredibly hard to connect cause and effect. And when cause and effect feel fuzzy, we default to:
Blaming the system
Blaming the people
Or, doubling down on effort
Instead of just adjusting the flows.
When Growth Goals Outrun the Feedback Loop
In another engagement, I worked with a professional services firm that had historically grown through outbound efforts from its own team. Relationships. Referrals. Individual hustle.
But those wells were drying up a bit, and leadership wanted to lean into paid social advertising to drive new leads.
On the surface, that seems completely reasonable. If outbound isn’t producing at the same level, let’s turn up another faucet, right?
But here’s what we had to explore together: Paid social doesn’t necessarily exist in isolation. It feeds into — and is fed by — other flows in the system.
And in this case:
Amplification of the firm’s organic social posts across the team was inconsistent, so thought leadership wasn’t being amplified collectively.
The firm hadn’t built strong, repeated visibility in the market beyond individual relationships.
So if paid social were to underperform, what would the feedback loop tell us?
Would it definitively say:
“Paid ads don’t work for us”?
Or, would it consider the possibility that:
“We turned up one faucet, but forgot to check whether the rest of the plumbing was ready”?
Without early checkpoints and shared expectations, it can be easy to misread initial signals.
Because feedback in marketing often has a delay. It compounds. It layers. It depends on trust built over time.
If you expect immediate pipeline transformation from one tactic, you’re likely to occasionally and prematurely conclude that the tactic failed — when really the system needed strengthening upstream.
Again, this isn’t about anyone being irrational. It’s about how long it takes to see what’s really happening.
Feedback Loops Inside Adoption, Too
I’ve also seen this show up during software implementation. A new tool gets selected thoughtfully. Leadership is aligned. Training happens. Everyone nods in the kickoff meeting.
And for a few weeks, everything appears fine.
But if you don’t build short feedback loops into the rollout, what you miss are the quiet signals:
People reverting to old spreadsheets “just for now”
Inconsistent data entry
Side conversations happening outside the system
Confusion about decision rights
By the time someone says, “It feels like adoption is low,” the drift has already been happening for weeks. And now you’re not just adjusting behavior; you’re rebuilding trust.
In these moments, the question isn’t:
“Why aren’t people using the tool?”
It’s:
“When was our last honest signal check?”
Did we create a safe space for friction to surface? Did we ask what’s unclear? Did we make visible what’s actually being used — and what isn’t?
Shorter loops. Earlier signals. Smaller corrections. That’s the difference.
So What Do We Do With This?
If feedback loops are about signals and timing, then the work isn’t necessarily to overhaul the system.
It’s to shorten the distance between action and insight.
A few practical ways I’ve seen this help:
Build short, scheduled “lessons learned” sessions into project timelines before you even begin.
Make one tool or dashboard the agreed-upon “bathtub water level”; even if it’s imperfect.
Ask, “What would tell us early that this isn’t working?” before launching something new.
Get executive sponsorship not just for the initiative…but for the review cadence.
Because here’s the real truth: You can’t eliminate delay entirely.
Some feedback simply takes time. Markets respond slowly. Culture shifts gradually. Behavioral change compounds.
But you can decide not to operate blindly in the meantime.
A Small Experiment for This Month
If you’re leading or participating in a change right now, try this: Pick one initiative where the outcome feels a little fuzzy.
Then ask:
What is our “water level”?
What flows influence it?
When will we look at it again?
And is that soon enough?
You don’t need a massive overhaul. You just need one earlier signal. Because the difference between reacting and steering toward better outcomes is often just timing.
