Feedback Is Part of the Operation

Last time, I wrote about delegation.

Giving someone work isn't the same as creating the conditions for them to produce a successful outcome.

We need to define expectations, establish boundaries, provide appropriate autonomy, and agree on when to check progress.

And that raises another question: What happens when the work doesn't produce what we expected?

I've been thinking about feedback as something more fundamental than praise, criticism, or performance evaluation. Feedback is how a system learns what its actions are actually producing.

Recently, I gave students an assignment that required them to visit an art gallery with a partner.

Their task was to explore how another person noticed and interpreted artwork, what shaped that interpretation, and what became visible through their conversation.I wanted them to reflect on their experience and communicate what they had learned.

But several students seemed surprised that they had only four days to prepare their presentations. Initially, I could have interpreted their reaction as a problem with time management.

Instead, I reconsidered what I had asked them to do.

I realized that I had been thinking of the presentation primarily as an opportunity for reflection.

Students may have been imagining something more elaborate: coordinating another meeting, preparing slides, organizing material, and rehearsing.

The difference wasn't necessarily effort. It was expectations.

So I clarified that slides weren't required, another meeting wasn't necessary, and their preparation should focus on reflection. The students' reactions gave me information about how my instructions were being interpreted.

Without that feedback, I might have continued operating under an assumption that wasn't shared.

This happens in organizations too. A manager delegates a project. The employee completes the assigned tasks. But the result doesn't meet expectations.

The manager might conclude: "They didn't understand the assignment."

The employee might conclude: "I did exactly what I was asked to do."

Both perspectives may contain something important.

The problem could involve unclear expectations, insufficient resources, conflicting priorities, missing capabilities, or decisions that were never properly delegated.

Before deciding what needs correcting, someone has to investigate the gap between:

Expected performance → Actual performance

And then ask: What explains the difference? That's where feedback becomes useful.

I'm increasingly interested in the difference between feedback that describes performance and feedback that helps improve it.

Consider two responses to an employee who submits a report that doesn't support the decision it was supposed to inform.

The first: "This report needs to be more strategic."

The second: "The report describes what happened, but it doesn't identify which of the three options we should pursue. I need a recommendation supported by the evidence so we can make a decision."

The first communicates dissatisfaction. The second identifies the missing relationship between the work and its intended outcome. It gives the person something to act on.

Useful feedback helps people understand what needs to change and why.

As I develop my ability to lead people, I'm realizing that coaching and accountability shouldn't be treated as opposites.

Coaching asks: What support would help this person improve?

Accountability asks:What outcome did we agree to produce, and what happened?

Both are necessary. If I only coach, I may avoid making difficult judgments about whether expectations are being met. If I only hold people accountable, I may overlook the conditions preventing them from succeeding.

Sometimes the person needs clearer instructions. Sometimes they need practice. Sometimes they need more authority or resources. Sometimes the expectations need to change. And sometimes the person needs to take responsibility for work they agreed to complete. The challenge is determining which response fits the evidence.

There's another distinction I want to make. Collecting feedback isn't the same as using it. Organizations collect surveys. Teachers collect course evaluations. Managers conduct performance reviews. Businesses request customer feedback.

But what happens afterward?

If the information doesn't influence a decision, behaviour, process, or expectation, it may never become useful. The operating loop I'm trying to develop looks something like this:

Expectation → Action → Observation → Comparison → Adjustment → New action

The adjustment is important. Without it, feedback becomes another form of information accumulation. And that's the knowledge-to-action problem I've been investigating through Leverage.

When reviewing someone's work, including my own, I'm beginning to think about five questions.

1. What did we expect to happen? Identify the outcome, not just the activity.

2. What actually happened? Look for observable evidence rather than relying entirely on impressions.

3. Where is the difference? What was missing, unexpected, incomplete, or particularly effective?

4. What explains the difference? Was it a problem with understanding, capability, resources, coordination, motivation, or the expectations themselves?

5. What should change next? Identify an adjustment that can be tested.This prevents feedback from ending as commentary.

Think about a recent situation where someone's work didn't meet your expectations. Or perhaps a situation where your own work didn't produce the result you wanted.

Ask yourself: Did I clearly establish what success would look like before evaluating the result?

Then consider: What would I need to understand before deciding whether the problem was performance, expectations, or the system supporting the work?

These questions matter to me because I'm trying to develop the ability to produce outcomes through people and systems rather than relying exclusively on my own labour.

That requires learning how to 1) establish expectations, 2) observe performance, 3) support improvement, and 4) how I take responsibility for the conditions under which work happens.

Feedback isn't an interruption to the work. It's part of how the work gets better. And once we've made an adjustment, another question becomes unavoidable: Did the adjustment actually work?

That's what I'll explore next: Did the Communication Actually Work?

— Greg Campbell
Leverage your experience.