Chapter 8 - Real-Time Feedback and Dialogue
Feedback is critical to performance: it enables those who take action to recognize the effects their actions are having, enabling them to adjust their plans and activities to reconsider (or cease) actions that are not having the desired effects and divert resources to those activities that are. The more timely the feedback, the less effort is wasted pursuing the wrong activities.
Feedback is particularly problematic in structured organizations. The author mentions employee performance reviews in particular. In some instances employees who are doing the wrong things for months before they ever hear that they are having a negative effect because performance reviews are quarterly, biannually, or annually. (EN: Not to mention that employee reviews are often tied to compensation, so they are scorecards that indicate "what you did wrong" rather than guides for future performance to indicate "what you should be doing instead.")
Another feedback issue in traditional organizations is that it all has to do with the boss. An employee is not guided to work in the way that produces results, but to work in the manner that their supervisor approves of (generally, conformity to documented standards) regardless of the results it achieves. Personality can also be a factor, as some bosses are reserved about handing out praise while others are reluctant to say anything unpleasant.
As a result, the feedback that ought to be guiding employees to be more efficient and effective is so delayed and distorted that it becomes meaningless - and may even coach them in the wrong direction.
In a networked organization, feedback is the result of performance: the employee can see for himself what he is accomplishing, and can also see what others are accomplishing to get a clear sense of whether his contributions are similar to others. He can then learn from those who are more efficient and get immediate feedback from witnessing the outcome of his actions in real time.
(EN: I am not so sure about this because it coaches to ultra short-term benefits and depends on the employee to know whether a given behavior is having positive results in a specialized role. For example, the call center employee may choose for himself a metric of calls-per-hour rather than customer problems solved, and thereby guide himself down the wrong path.)
Two Observations
The author tells of her own observations while lounging about a coffee shop and noticing a difference in feedback styles. For one shift she had difficulty determining who the supervisor was, as the team seemed self-directed in taking and preparing orders, serving customers, and tending to general tasks in the service area and lounge. For the next shift, it was obvious who was "in charge" as the supervisor was constantly hovering over workers telling them what they ought to be doing and the mood of the staff was less cheerful overall.
(EN: there's no lesson to be learned here. She states "I wondered if there was a difference in sales" and "it would not surprise me if there was a difference" in favor of the more self-directed team ... but this is merely speculation.)
A Better Way
Leadership styles are largely determined by culture: a culture of control demands a leader to closely govern workers, giving specific orders and watching over employees to ensure they are compliant. A manager who trusts in his team to work together in a self-directed manner would be perceived as "not doing his job" in a traditional organization - regardless of the results his team achieves - because the traditional focus is on activities rather than outcomes.
Another method for exercising control is to withhold access to information. If employees can see the daily sales figures, they can then judge for themselves whether their actions are getting results, experiment with doing things a little differently to see if they get better results at the end of the day, and so on. When it comes to achieving outcomes, this is all good and well - but when the focus is on managing activities, this sort of feedback is discouraged because employees will ignore procedures and do what is effective in getting results. Which, for some reason, is regarded as bad.
In a networked community with transparency of information, employees are empowered to govern their own activities and can see the results they are achieving. They can adapt as necessary to improve performance, experiment with doing things differently, and evolve their work patterns by eliminating what is ineffective and adopting what is more effective. With real-time feedback, evolutionary iterations can occur in near-real time.
The author provides an example of an instance in which employees communicated across channels to get better results - and then remarks that while this is entirely possible, it is often discouraged by managers who wish to control the flow of information and direct the work of their own employees.
It's also mentioned that feedback becomes part of a ritual. If employees learn that sales figures are published once a week, they will generally look to receive this data once a week and will not request it sooner. It will also be assumed that anyone who does not receive a copy of that report is not authorized (and should be denied access to) the information, even if there is no explicit indication it should be restricted.
Summary
Rather than rehash information from the chapter, the author uses the summary to predict that real-time feedback will eventually become "more mainstream" and an increasing number of businesses will provide a broader range of data to employees rather than denying them access to anything that someone else decides they need.
And because employees genuinely want to be effective in their work, they will use this feedback to manage their own performance. And because employees will manage their own performance, the "old way" of doing business through hierarchies of authority will be recognized for what they are: structures designed to prevent change from occurring, in an age where the ability to change quickly is critical.