Let’s talk about feedback loops in the workplace and how they affect engagement. And no, this isn’t just the feedback that happens in 1:1 conversations or performance reviews, although those are part of the system. This is about the feedback that exists in the organization itself.
When we zoom out, we start to see—based on the organizations I’ve observed—that performance signals are embedded in how engagement is created.
When a supervisor labels an employee as a low performer, that employee may feel their efforts aren’t seen. Over time, this can create the very outcome the label predicts: low performance.
We also see micromanaging supervisors, flustered by the constraints of their role, driven as much by fear of punishment for missing goals as by pressure to meet them.
The interesting part is that there is no single party to blame in either of these scenarios. Leaders, coworkers who stand by, or the employee, they all play a role. Pointing fingers at one group rarely solves the problem, but it does make us feel good knowing there is an identified cause, even if it isn’t the most effective one.
I’ve been in roles where I felt my lack of success was entirely my fault. After having conversations with others, both direct reports and leadership, I realized that being blamed is widespread, and yet the challenge of engagement persists.
To understand the context, we have to zoom out. What is being rewarded? What is acknowledged?
The environment that fosters low performance is often set long before an employee even arrives. Every employee, from entry-level to C-Suite, participates in a loop where information flows: what works, what doesn’t, and what is considered effective versus ineffective. As each professional receives that information, they adjust their actions based on their personal goals and the goals they believe the organization values. Feedback is generated with every shift, but it’s often delayed. Acting too quickly on incomplete feedback can unintentionally worsen the very problem it was meant to solve. Acting too slowly can cause us to miss the window. Taken in isolation, either approach—quick or slow—does a great job at not solving the problem.
Looking closer, we see that outcomes in this system aren’t determined by the sum of its parts, but by how the parts interact. In other words, in a system, 1 + 1 doesn’t always equal 2—it might equal 5… or −3.
Simple example
I think of an organization like a car. A car has many parts: engine, wheels, battery, steering wheel—and countless other parts I can’t even name.
Individually, none of these parts can move the car, but together they create mobility. Mobility only appears when the parts work together. When the car gives feedback—like a low fuel warning or an oil change alert—we use that information to keep it running smoothly.
In the Workplace
This works the same way in the workplace when we view it through a systems lens.
Think about a team where:
- One person is highly skilled
- Another communicates well
- Another is organized
Alone, they are competent, but together, their interaction can generate outcomes like:
- trust
- momentum
- creativity
- high performance
- engagement
These outcomes don’t reside in any one person, but rather they emerge from how the parts interact. And just as interaction can create high performance, it can also undermine it if the parts don’t align.
A systems lens lets us see not just individual groups, but the entire organization,including both written and unwritten rules, helping us identify the points where influence and change are possible. Blaming one group won’t achieve success; the system as a whole must be addressed.
Bringing it all together
The feedback within a system or organization communicates with us in both direct and indirect ways about which behaviors will be accepted or allowed. As employees interact with these feedback loops—and with each other—behavior begins to shift until it eventually settles into a pattern.
The only way to disrupt this is to understand two things:
- There is a system with multiple entry points.
- We must determine which behaviors can be addressed to influence the system at its most powerful points.
Conclusion
Now that we’ve redefined feedback loops and seen how results emerge from interactions, not parts alone, let’s look at what can be done.
First things first: this isn’t just about leadership, employees, or any single group—everyone plays a part.
Questions to ask:
- In what ways might X be contributing to this goal that I don’t yet see?
- What constraints or pressures might be influencing X’s behavior?
- What does the system currently allow, accept, or reward?
These questions alone won’t change the system, but if we ask them and look for the answers, we start uncovering the leverage points where change and engagement happens.
When engagement struggles persist despite new initiatives, it’s often because we’re adjusting parts of the system instead of understanding how the system itself behaves.
