All Things Being Equal...But They Never Are: Embracing Failures as Developmental Progress
Many thanks to Harold Jarche for his July 5th posting, The Adaptive Organisation. As a result of his encouragement I just finished reading and enjoying Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure by Tim Harford.
The topic under examination in ‘Adapt…’ is the author’s contention that as much as necessity, failure may be the mother of invention. Not only does Harford argue for the acceptance of failure as a part of life he celebrates it as essential to progress, something no doubt that makes intuitive sense to many of us but seems avoided like a plague in most business environments. .jpg)
As I am reading I find myself reflecting on a career rife with a rich tapestry of failures. Certainly some of these I learned from but the most compelling part of Harford’s argument is the strong tendency we often have to promote failures by getting “stuck” in our successes. This point I could definitely relate with. I was reminded of my high school experience playing basketball, something to this day that when thought of still carries the sting of unfulfilled expectations.
I was at best an average high school athlete. Fortunately for me I chose to attend a high school and where the talent pool was somewhat lean and I was good enough to make the teams in baseball and basketball. Our newly appointed basketball coach had himself been a high school All American. At the time I was playing he was in his late thirties I imagine and still a better player than anyone on our team! He had come to our school from a much smaller town where under his guidance his team had won a state championship so his arrival was accompanied by high hopes that our lowly program would finally show some life and bring glory to our fans. In the two years I played for him there was no such luck!
In retrospect I am of the opinion that our coach experienced being stuck with his past success, at least in the years I was there. He insisted on a methodical style of play that placed a premium on ball handling skills and rebounding ability, areas where he excelled. As a group we were not great ball handlers and we were short, not ideal for the style of play he was comfortable with. As a group of players were better suited to a "run and gun" style of play. Our record reflected our inability to execute his system as much as it did our suitability for his system. So we lost a lot and we also didn’t have much fun while we were doing it which is a shame. Midway through my senior year I was replaced by someone, a better ball handler, who was two years my junior. We didn’t win any more, I sat the bench but coach had it the way he wanted it. And he had bigger things in mind for himself. He was ambitious; our school was just a stepping stone to greater opportunities so our experience didn’t seem to be his top priority.
In later years I played some city league ball and a couple of those teams won championships in their classes. The style was mostly what you would call “run and gun” making the best use of the speed and shooting ability of the players involved. We let the talent of the players on the floor dictate the style of play and in doing so not only had more success we also had more fun.
In the later chapters of ‘Adapt…’ Harford talks about organizations with successful pasts failing to adjust to current circumstances rather attempting to force their apparent formula for success. He says that the lessons learned are in many ways flawed because they do not take into account the circumstances in which success was achieved. Kind of like my high school coach they assume that all things stay equal so what they know from the past should work in the present. Not likely!
As a manager can you put the development of your people at least on par with your own success? Assuming that you’ll answer yes then the Palchinsky* principles of adaptability will probably work for you:
- Be willing to try new things.
- Make failures survivable.
- Know when you have failed.
*Harford loves Palchinsky and cites his principles more than once in “Adapt…’
I am betting that if you can adopt this approach and you know the talents of those reporting to you then you also know if it is time for a methodical style calling for good ball handling skills or whether you should “run and gun.”
‘Adapt…’ concludes with a wonderful assertion;
“The ability to adapt requires a sense of security, an inner confidence that the coast of failure is a cost we will be able to bear…Without it, we will never truly succeed.”
- Are you prepared to catch your people when they fall?
- Do they know that?
- Is there someone there for you in the very same way?
