Tolerance

Relapses and Failures

Consequences for one’s actions.  It is a mantra of many youth organizations (and parents).  I recently learned of a gang-intervention program in Boston, Massachusetts.  The organization, Roca has an intriguing philosophy.

Roca has taken Prochaska’s stages of change and adapted them for a very high-risk youth development model…As change is not easy for any of us, relapse is often part of the process and can happen at any point in the stages of change. Relapses can be painful, embarrassing, demoralizing; can make change seem impossible; or provide a (weak) justification for not changing. However, they are also the times where a great deal of incredible learning can take place and work can be done.

Allowing for failure and relapses is a powerful value.  This is not a three strikes and you are out program.  If there was no support for those that failed the gangs succeed in recruiting the most vulnerable youth and the mission is unachievable.

Does your enterprise tolerate failure?  Could supporting those who relapse be part of your organization’s competitive advantage?  Many rags to riches narratives are filled with chapters of failure prior to finding motivation and great success.  Could your cause be uniquely positioned to support those who relapse?

Tolerance and Thrashing

Is there somebody at your organization that always has the wild ideas?  You know the zany concepts about radically altering the way your organization does business?  Does this individual contain an bottomless well of new approaches?  Does your organization thrive on the suggestions or is it disruptive?


One of the concepts I have come to readily adopt is the idea of thrashing.  Thrashing is represented by the active brainstorming and manipulation of a new or existing idea.  It can take place in many stages of development and its impact varies.  Perhaps a visual representation offers more clarity.





Thrashing works exceedingly well at the inception of an idea.  It is what allows a foal to find its legs and begin to walk.  Without a willingness to put everything on the line the foal is doomed to suffer an unfavorable evolutionary ending.  Thrashing works less well when done later in the development stage.  The results can be more destructive than productive.







Seth Godin’s book Linchpin makes an interesting case for the value of thrashing.

“Thrashing is essential.  The question is: when to thrash?  In the typical amateur project, all the thrashing is near the end.  The closer we got to shipping, the more people get involved, the more meetings we have, the more likely the CEO wants to be involved.  And why not?  What’s the point of getting involved early when you can’t see what’s already done and your work will probably be redone anyway.  The point of getting everyone involved early is simple: thrash late and you won’t ship.  Thrash late and you introduce bugs.  Professional creators thrash early.  The closer the project gets to completion, the fewer people see it and the fewer changes are permitted.”



Tolerance is an amazing part of any organization’s culture.  It allows for innovation and new concepts.  An enterprise with a willingness to tolerate a wide range of ideas is powerful.  Having a value system in place to be accepting attracts lots of fans.  However, creating an agreement about when the time for input is being closed is equally important.  At some point you need one person to make the decision, even if it is a decision to vote.  One person needs to take all the inputs and write the strategic plan.  One person needs to be empowered to enter into a contract on behalf of the organization.  If you thrash late you may never seize any opportunities now matter how great the idea.

Tolerance


I have learned many of the most important lesssons from people who initially said things that annoyed me. Consider how tolerance of outliers has changed our relationship with icons today. A few quick examples:

  • The Cabinet of Abraham Lincoln
  • Helen Keller
  • Jackie Robinson
  • Bill Gates
  • Lance Armstrong
  • Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer

Sometimes you do not grasp that you are following an outlier. As a kid I celebrated the success of Bill Koch, the only US Olympic medalist in cross-country skiing and winner of the season long World Cup. In 1976 he raced on waxless skis to win a Silver medal. Waxless skis would be like driving a Ford Taurus in a NASCAR race. He later adopted the technique of skating and revolutionized the way cross-country skiing was contested. He was so successful that the former powerhouse countries protested and eventually divided cross-country skiing into two techniques for racing, traditional technique and free technique (skating).

Are you allowing those who do not represent the conventional view to have a voice in your organization? Do you allow them to speak and does your organization really listen and consider their message? Do you seek out individuals with different view points? Would a unique perspective change your deliberations and decision-making?