Papon's feedback loop

I attended a Papon concert on Saturday. His singing was energetic, but what struck me was how deliberately he kept the evening alive.

He ran musical drills with the audience. He sang opening lines and let us complete them. He asked what we wanted to hear. He invited people to dance and then danced on stage himself. And after the show ended, he didn't disappear. He stayed, made himself available, let people take photographs, spoke to a few others.

None of this felt accidental. What Papon was doing, consciously or not, was designing a feedback loop into the performance itself. The audience wasn't receiving the concert, we were part of it. Every response he got - the energy in the room, the voices completing his lines, the suggestions, the movement - was immediate, direct, and unfiltered. It told him exactly how the evening was landing. And it made the performance better.

As leaders move up and away from the point of action, the feedback loops become longer. What was once a direct signal now travels through multiple stops before it reaches the person who needs it. And at each stop, there are interpretations and changes. The message gets softened, reframed, delayed, or simply dropped. By the time feedback arrives, it may no longer resemble what was originally sent.

The delay diminishes the leader's ability to respond in time.The distortion diminishes their ability to respond accurately.Together, they quietly diminish the leader's capacity to see what is actually happening.

Papon's choices suggest something for leaders. The feedback loop doesn't improve on its own. It has to be designed - deliberately, repeatedly, in formal channels and informal moments alike.And perhaps equally importantly - staying in the room after the performance ends. Not disappearing behind the authority of the position. Being accessible when there is no longer any formal requirement to be.