Compensating feedback happens when the root problem is not addressed

How often does our first response to a problem result in more work for ourselves in the long run? We see a problem and apply the first patch that comes to mind. Meanwhile, the origin of the problem goes untouched and, in due time, a new problem springs up. If the problems multiply, we add more effort until we burn out or finally discover our fixes haven’t touched the root problem. this is called compensating feedback, and it happens when an intervention makes momentary improvement but negatively impacts another part of the system, which eventually returns the favor.

Let’s say a person undergoes surgery to relieve debilitating back pain. The surgery works, the back pain is gone, and after recovery, the person moves happily on with their life as a grocer. Months later, the back pain begins to return. Why? Because, while the surgery fix did relieve the back symptoms, it did not address the person’s bad habit of lifting heavy boxes with poor posture and no back support. Not only is the grocer worse off than before, with a huge medical bill and a still-hurting back, but he’s also become addicted to the heavy-duty pain meds the doctor prescribed after the surgery.

Business is full of feedback loops that are often more obscure than personal loops because the change affects another department and the feedback comes back with no connection to the initial change.

For example, a product manager decides that, for the future of the product, a key feature needs to be deprecated. The product department makes the change and its productivity rises now that this difficult feature is gone. Meanwhile, new customers suddenly discover that an important feature is now missing from the product they just purchased. Droves of customers return the product and encourage their friends to find an alternative. The head of Sales discovers that this month’s numbers have plummeted and berates the sales team for poorly communicating the product’s features.

The head of Sales may never discover that the decision by the product manager was the reason the month’s sales numbers dropped. Likewise, the product manager assumes their change was a good idea because he’s seeing momentary benefits in his own department. Later, when he can’t replace new engineers because the company has had low profits for the last couple months, he’ll never suspect that the low profits were the result of his decision.

Compensating feedback would likely explain 80% of the long-standing problems I’ve faced. Like Senge’s example taken from Animal Farm, I address symptoms in my life with greater effort and diligence rather than asking what the root problem is. What may be obvious from an outside perspective, to someone who can see the whole system and not only the immediate problem, is a mystery to myself ((Senge)).

Every one-on-one my manager would address some communication he thought could be improved. This happened because earlier in the year he gave me a low performance review and I pressed him for more feedback so I could improve. The more negative feedback I received, the harder I tried to improve my communication. Months later, I discovered that the reason I wasn’t able to change the feedback I was receiving was because the root problem isn’t communication, it’s expectations. He expected a certain style of communication that I wasn’t conforming to. Even though, in my style, my communication was clear and concise, because it didn’t match the style he wanted all my efforts were in vain. Once the style was addressed, the feedback on my communication stopped, even though I have made no changes to my communication since.

References

Senge, Peter M. (2010) The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Revised & Updated Edition. Crown Business. Chapter 4: The Laws of the Fifth Discipline.