Groups never admit failure(nav.al)
nav.al
Groups never admit failure
https://nav.al/failure
346 comments
I was on the board of a foundation that was charged with giving out money for a cause, and I found it very disillusioning because what I learned was that no matter what the foundation did, they would declare victory. Every project was victorious. Every project was a success. There was a lot of back slapping. There were a lot of high-sounding mission statements and vision statements, a lot of congratulations, a lot of nice dinners—but nothing ever got done.
This is what most nonprofits, and a surprisingly large number of businesses, are like: https://seliger.com/2012/03/25/why-fund-organizations-throug.... Some nonprofits mistakenly believe that grant evaluations are about evaluating the efficacy of the program, rather than declaring victory: https://seliger.com/2013/06/02/with-charity-for-all-ken-ster...
This is what most nonprofits, and a surprisingly large number of businesses, are like: https://seliger.com/2012/03/25/why-fund-organizations-throug.... Some nonprofits mistakenly believe that grant evaluations are about evaluating the efficacy of the program, rather than declaring victory: https://seliger.com/2013/06/02/with-charity-for-all-ken-ster...
Counterpoint: GiveWell has a link "Our Mistakes" directly on the main navigation bar!
https://www.givewell.org/about/our-mistakes
It's beautiful to see such behavior <3
https://www.givewell.org/about/our-mistakes
It's beautiful to see such behavior <3
> A group will never admit they were wrong. A group will never admit, “We made a mistake,” because a group that tries to change its mind falls apart. I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.”
Just because the author can't think of an example doesn't make it true.
In fact groups of people, typically businesses, admit failure all the time. And it doesn't follow that this causes a "schism"
Isn't Y-Combinator all about failing fast and pivots? Funny to see such a silly notion here of all places.
Just because the author can't think of an example doesn't make it true.
In fact groups of people, typically businesses, admit failure all the time. And it doesn't follow that this causes a "schism"
Isn't Y-Combinator all about failing fast and pivots? Funny to see such a silly notion here of all places.
The principle claim of this essay is that groups never change their viewpoints. What's ironic is that it appears in a public environment in which groups are changing their viewpoints, often quite publicly. Many are taking extreme heat for this.
Technical projects and groups are adopting codes of conduct and behaviour, changing stances on what had long been accepted.
Companies are similarly changing their views on what types of behaviour are considered acceptable amongst both staff and leadership.
The high court of the United States just heard a case in which it seems highly likely that it will substantially change its collective mind over a decision it had made some 50 years ago.
The two major political parties of the United States have, over the course of some 60 or so years, virtually completely changed their respective stances on racial equality and civil rights. Not a fast change, but a profound one.
The Catholic Church has reversed itself on earlier condemnations and beliefs, notably of heliocentrism and the conviction of Galileo.
Scientific bodies and disciplines change their mind, preferably based on evidence, all the time. It's what science is. A remarkable case was the development of the theory of plate tectonics from a radical fringe concept to the central organising principle of geology, from 1915 to 1965.
We're in the midst of an onging attempt to change collective understanding, and response to the overwhelmingly evident fact of anthropogenic global warming as a consequence of fossil fuel use.
Reputable news and media organisations report on their own errors and omissions on an ongoing basis.
The most durable institutions in the world are not commercial entities (the five-year failure rate of new enterprises is about 50%). Rather, they are not-for-profit service organisations and institutions, typically schools. The oldest universities date back over 1,000 years, and there are primary schools dating to before the year 1.
And the field of economics has been in the process of admitting the failure of free-market absolutism, or even of free markets as anything other than a special case, for over 150 years.
Groups are resistant to change, yes, but they are not absolutely incapable of it.
Arguing against facts is quite easy where one doesn't bother to consult them.
Technical projects and groups are adopting codes of conduct and behaviour, changing stances on what had long been accepted.
Companies are similarly changing their views on what types of behaviour are considered acceptable amongst both staff and leadership.
The high court of the United States just heard a case in which it seems highly likely that it will substantially change its collective mind over a decision it had made some 50 years ago.
The two major political parties of the United States have, over the course of some 60 or so years, virtually completely changed their respective stances on racial equality and civil rights. Not a fast change, but a profound one.
The Catholic Church has reversed itself on earlier condemnations and beliefs, notably of heliocentrism and the conviction of Galileo.
Scientific bodies and disciplines change their mind, preferably based on evidence, all the time. It's what science is. A remarkable case was the development of the theory of plate tectonics from a radical fringe concept to the central organising principle of geology, from 1915 to 1965.
We're in the midst of an onging attempt to change collective understanding, and response to the overwhelmingly evident fact of anthropogenic global warming as a consequence of fossil fuel use.
Reputable news and media organisations report on their own errors and omissions on an ongoing basis.
The most durable institutions in the world are not commercial entities (the five-year failure rate of new enterprises is about 50%). Rather, they are not-for-profit service organisations and institutions, typically schools. The oldest universities date back over 1,000 years, and there are primary schools dating to before the year 1.
And the field of economics has been in the process of admitting the failure of free-market absolutism, or even of free markets as anything other than a special case, for over 150 years.
Groups are resistant to change, yes, but they are not absolutely incapable of it.
Arguing against facts is quite easy where one doesn't bother to consult them.
It took a lot of effort, but Japan's Meiji Era civil war was a big one.
The Samurai Class said: "This system is not good, and look over there, battleships from Western Nations are on our shore. Time to modernize and industrialize, and time to retire the Samurai system".
Of course, the other half of the Samurai argued otherwise and thus the civil war started. Turns out that the side that chose guns and industrialization won.
----------
Arguably, every revolution and civil war was basically a group deciding that the old way was bad and that some new way was better. But the Meiji Restoration is perhaps the most striking example in the past 200 years.
Yes, the "schism" happened as per the blogpost. But the schism was fixed and Japan was reunited, fighting as a united front in the Russo-Japanese war... proving that Japan had in fact become a modern world power.
The Samurai Class said: "This system is not good, and look over there, battleships from Western Nations are on our shore. Time to modernize and industrialize, and time to retire the Samurai system".
Of course, the other half of the Samurai argued otherwise and thus the civil war started. Turns out that the side that chose guns and industrialization won.
----------
Arguably, every revolution and civil war was basically a group deciding that the old way was bad and that some new way was better. But the Meiji Restoration is perhaps the most striking example in the past 200 years.
Yes, the "schism" happened as per the blogpost. But the schism was fixed and Japan was reunited, fighting as a united front in the Russo-Japanese war... proving that Japan had in fact become a modern world power.
there are a lot of funny passages in here, but this one really made me laugh:
> If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit because for-profits have to take feedback from reality. Ironically, for-profit entities are more sustainable than non-profit entities. They’re self-sustainable. You’re not out there with a begging bowl all the time.
Tech, finance, and the automotive industry are three great examples of for-profit industries that are almost always insulated from feedback from reality and are constantly "out there with a begging bowl."
> If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit because for-profits have to take feedback from reality. Ironically, for-profit entities are more sustainable than non-profit entities. They’re self-sustainable. You’re not out there with a begging bowl all the time.
Tech, finance, and the automotive industry are three great examples of for-profit industries that are almost always insulated from feedback from reality and are constantly "out there with a begging bowl."
>I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.”
Being German I would like to think that while there's always opportunity to be more introspective about your history over the last few generations we've done an okay job of correcting some historical mistakes, and that's a pretty decently sized group.
>If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit
I can only assume that if we'd turned the country into an LLC we'd be even more on the cutting edge of error correcting today. I feel like this post is what happens if you burn every history book and instead shove a diet of a16z podcasts and silicon valley serial entrepreneur biographies through GPT-3
Being German I would like to think that while there's always opportunity to be more introspective about your history over the last few generations we've done an okay job of correcting some historical mistakes, and that's a pretty decently sized group.
>If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit
I can only assume that if we'd turned the country into an LLC we'd be even more on the cutting edge of error correcting today. I feel like this post is what happens if you burn every history book and instead shove a diet of a16z podcasts and silicon valley serial entrepreneur biographies through GPT-3
I would replace "never" with "rarely." Patagonia is a good example of a company that admits failure -- they talk alot in their publications about finding ecological, moral, and profitability problems with their practices, describing lessons learned and attempts to improve.
I have seen in my work that individual tasks present failures as successes in their final reviews, and I can't think of any examples of a task that admitted "this didn't work out" even though many of the projects I'm thinking of are R&D and really didn't work out at all.
I have seen in my work that individual tasks present failures as successes in their final reviews, and I can't think of any examples of a task that admitted "this didn't work out" even though many of the projects I'm thinking of are R&D and really didn't work out at all.
Seems like this depends on what you mean by "large group." If we're only talking about, say, populations of entire large countries, or all adherents to a major world religion, then sure, it would be very unlikely to get them to literally all agree that some error was made. But that's mostly because it would be difficult to coordinate any behavior that specific across that large of a group of people. If, however, we're just talking about the official leadership or representatives of some large group, then there are plenty of cases of them admitting mistakes. Even big companies and governments occasionally admit mistakes.
This article reads like an anecdotal rant.
> Groups never admit failure.
> I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.”
First statement does not follow from the second. The rest of the article is even worse in its sudden jumps to conclusions.
> Groups never admit failure.
> I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.”
First statement does not follow from the second. The rest of the article is even worse in its sudden jumps to conclusions.
> A group will never admit they were wrong. A group will never admit, “We made a mistake,” because a group that tries to change its mind falls apart. I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.”
What would this look like? 100% of members all announcing it at the same time? A simple majority? Just a single leader, or board?
Because if it’s the leader option, that does happen occasionally. And even when groups don’t instantly change their minds, they can change their minds over time and eventually admit they used to be wrong. That does happen.
What would this look like? 100% of members all announcing it at the same time? A simple majority? Just a single leader, or board?
Because if it’s the leader option, that does happen occasionally. And even when groups don’t instantly change their minds, they can change their minds over time and eventually admit they used to be wrong. That does happen.
Delay, Deny, Defend.
In doubt and you can't help, confess to be a miserable wretch, but also a victim of circumstance and heartbreakingly beg for forgiveness.
Not to forget, tell them you have understood your mistakes and will do everything possible to avoid them in the future.
That 'possible' is important next time, you fool them. Just in case they remember last time.
Sometimes it even pays to keep its promises.
http://cssc.uscannenberg.org/cases/v1/v1art6/
Not to forget, tell them you have understood your mistakes and will do everything possible to avoid them in the future.
That 'possible' is important next time, you fool them. Just in case they remember last time.
Sometimes it even pays to keep its promises.
http://cssc.uscannenberg.org/cases/v1/v1art6/
I think it depends on how drastically wrong the group is and if the which sets of individuals in a group that gets attracted to it based on around an idea, mission, value, etc.
Like for example, as soon as meme stocks dive in the next recession, most likely the reddit groups based around this will fall apart because the idea that meme stocks are a great way to make quick money will die.
I think the shape of the group changes, those with more deeply held beliefs about a group will stay and perhaps "regroup", but for most, who get attracted to a particular group for no clear first principles, they will leave and from their perspective, the group has definitely died.
But to use the meme stock example above, those who were in the group because of deeper beliefs that meme stocks signal a shift in retail trading and the rise of the consumer need for financial independence early on tied to the lowered barriers of financial transactions thanks to the internet, they will regroup.
Ok back to work
Like for example, as soon as meme stocks dive in the next recession, most likely the reddit groups based around this will fall apart because the idea that meme stocks are a great way to make quick money will die.
I think the shape of the group changes, those with more deeply held beliefs about a group will stay and perhaps "regroup", but for most, who get attracted to a particular group for no clear first principles, they will leave and from their perspective, the group has definitely died.
But to use the meme stock example above, those who were in the group because of deeper beliefs that meme stocks signal a shift in retail trading and the rise of the consumer need for financial independence early on tied to the lowered barriers of financial transactions thanks to the internet, they will regroup.
Ok back to work
Seems like yet another lesson from Clay Shirky's "A Group is its own Worst Enemy"[1]. From the talk/essay:
It’s obvious that there are no groups without members. But what’s less obvious is that there are no members without a group — because what would you be a member of?
So there’s this very complicated moment of a group coming together, where enough individuals, for whatever reason, sort of agree that something worthwhile is happening, and the decision they make at that moment is “This is good and must be protected.” And at that moment, even if it’s subconscious, you start getting group effects.
I once knew a man that was campaigning against a proposed metro line because he feared it would be too noisy, harm the environment, scar his neighborhood, etc.
One day he organized a walk along the entire proposed path of the new metro line. At the end of the walk, they discussed it and to his own surprise he came to the conclusion that actually it was not that bad after all. His anti-metro group did of course dissolve.
I had a lot of respect for him.
Apple was forced to admit that its efforts to develop a next generation operating system failed so they looked around and after considering both BeOS and NeXT Apple bought NeXT and began work on what would be called Mac OS X which is what many of you used to read this.
I'm sorry to read this. It is very cynical.
It's not necessarily wrong, but I perceive it as inductive reasoning (failure to admit failure means failure, as a whole), that may not apply to many application contexts.
I've been in the NPO world for over 40 years (as a side gig). I have family that have been in it for even longer (as a full-time vocation); with varying degrees of success. I have friends that work at some very famous and effective NPOs.
I've had lots of failure; both individually, and as a member of a team, and we have always admitted it. I have also had what might be perceived, in the for-profit world, as "failure," but was actually a form of success, in the long game.
The same kind of thing can be ascribed to academia, and even to a selection of for-profit endeavors. I have seen this behavior many times in my "day jobs."
That said, the NPO/Academia world is pretty crazy, compared to the neat, clean lines of for-profit organizations. The main currencies tend to be passion, reputation, and ego, as opposed to money, and that leads to some "strange" behavior. Also, people can be quite ... driven, so the fights can be ... invigorating.
It's not necessarily wrong, but I perceive it as inductive reasoning (failure to admit failure means failure, as a whole), that may not apply to many application contexts.
I've been in the NPO world for over 40 years (as a side gig). I have family that have been in it for even longer (as a full-time vocation); with varying degrees of success. I have friends that work at some very famous and effective NPOs.
I've had lots of failure; both individually, and as a member of a team, and we have always admitted it. I have also had what might be perceived, in the for-profit world, as "failure," but was actually a form of success, in the long game.
The same kind of thing can be ascribed to academia, and even to a selection of for-profit endeavors. I have seen this behavior many times in my "day jobs."
That said, the NPO/Academia world is pretty crazy, compared to the neat, clean lines of for-profit organizations. The main currencies tend to be passion, reputation, and ego, as opposed to money, and that leads to some "strange" behavior. Also, people can be quite ... driven, so the fights can be ... invigorating.
The body seems to have been written by GPT-3, but the title and subheadline are a simple, and probably useful truth.
If an organization is wrong about one of its central tenets, it doesn't change that tenet, it splits. This is because if you disagree with one of the central tenets of an organization, you are no longer an guiding member of that organization. Therefore, if an organization of 100 people split because 90 of the people realize that the purpose of the organization doesn't make sense, now you have an organization of 10 people carefully explaining how those 90 never really understood the original purpose, and weren't willing to put in the work.
I think that's the process that strengthens groups, When Prophecy Fails style. Being wrong is a crucible that leaves the group completely composed of members who are only dedicated to the group itself, rather than any external object. The slag, who are hung up on actually being right, get skimmed off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
If an organization is wrong about one of its central tenets, it doesn't change that tenet, it splits. This is because if you disagree with one of the central tenets of an organization, you are no longer an guiding member of that organization. Therefore, if an organization of 100 people split because 90 of the people realize that the purpose of the organization doesn't make sense, now you have an organization of 10 people carefully explaining how those 90 never really understood the original purpose, and weren't willing to put in the work.
I think that's the process that strengthens groups, When Prophecy Fails style. Being wrong is a crucible that leaves the group completely composed of members who are only dedicated to the group itself, rather than any external object. The slag, who are hung up on actually being right, get skimmed off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
This is one reason why at the time of group formation I ask that one person be responsible for delivering the desired outcome of the group. By election, by appointment, whatever the circumstances may call for. And, as I learned the hard way, that responsibility needs to be coupled with and balanced by a suitable degree of authority.
Anecdotal at best. Never is too strong of a word here. I was expecting a study to be accompanied by the article given the conviction insinuated in the title.
Groups can come in various shapes and forms but generally they often come with a group leader, and that person can play a major role in defining success/failure.
Groups can come in various shapes and forms but generally they often come with a group leader, and that person can play a major role in defining success/failure.
It's an interesting premise, but does not support the conclusion that for-profit companies are more sustainable than non-profits. Like at all.
> A group will never admit they were wrong. A group will never admit, “We made a mistake,”
Controversies over the status of historical figures serves as a complete refutation of this piece. Societies and groups values are constantly changing.
Controversies over the status of historical figures serves as a complete refutation of this piece. Societies and groups values are constantly changing.
This honestly sounds like rumblings one should have at a bar, not on a blog…
No part of the argument is backed by anything but vague personal experience, and the outcome is as far reaching as “for profits are better than non profits”
No part of the argument is backed by anything but vague personal experience, and the outcome is as far reaching as “for profits are better than non profits”
> Usually what happens in that case is a schism
Pretty sure the "we were wrong" half of the schism is admitting failure. This feels like a "no true scotsman" fallacy. There are certainly going to be people who never change their minds, but there are many, many examples of groups changing their policies to the reverse of what they were (slavery, gay marriage, outlawing inter-racial marriage, etc). Obviously plenty of people disagree with those changes, but OP's view is that the "real" group is only the people who never changed their minds.
Pretty sure the "we were wrong" half of the schism is admitting failure. This feels like a "no true scotsman" fallacy. There are certainly going to be people who never change their minds, but there are many, many examples of groups changing their policies to the reverse of what they were (slavery, gay marriage, outlawing inter-racial marriage, etc). Obviously plenty of people disagree with those changes, but OP's view is that the "real" group is only the people who never changed their minds.
Great article!
On and individual level people often won't admit to mistakes either. There is a great book called:
Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts
On and individual level people often won't admit to mistakes either. There is a great book called:
Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts
> Groups Never Admit Failure
I've been a member of groups that admitted failure. One time a group of us swam through a barnacle-encrusted passageway & cut ourselves. Everyone was bleeding. "That was a mistake," we agreed.
A volunteer group I'm in accept a $150k bequest, and after much soul-searching we decided to return all but $10k. Everyone agreed that we shouldn't have accepted the money in the first place because it caused too much strife in our organization.
I've been a member of groups that admitted failure. One time a group of us swam through a barnacle-encrusted passageway & cut ourselves. Everyone was bleeding. "That was a mistake," we agreed.
A volunteer group I'm in accept a $150k bequest, and after much soul-searching we decided to return all but $10k. Everyone agreed that we shouldn't have accepted the money in the first place because it caused too much strife in our organization.
>I realized this was because there was no objective feedback. Because there is no loss—it’s all social profit—they couldn’t fail.
>If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit because for-profits have to take feedback from reality.
Why would it be the "best"? Non-profit organisations do have many other ways to have their performance validated and evaluated from "reality" transparently and objectively, just like e.g. a public company.
Sure, non-profit is not sustainable and legally binding etc etc, but the author doesn't provide concrete reason that a specific organisation model serves best for "building a better world." I'm not arguing that non-proft is the "best," but a foundation may receive funding and/or grants from a consortium of various non-profit and for-profit organisations, individuals, and etc.. This does not necessarily make the foundation itself "for-profit." The foundation could operate under critical scrutiny of stakeholders.
If anything, I'd blame the lack of transparency to interested parties (e.g. donors) as the main factor of organisational failure. This applies to both for-profits and non-profits.
>If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit because for-profits have to take feedback from reality.
Why would it be the "best"? Non-profit organisations do have many other ways to have their performance validated and evaluated from "reality" transparently and objectively, just like e.g. a public company.
Sure, non-profit is not sustainable and legally binding etc etc, but the author doesn't provide concrete reason that a specific organisation model serves best for "building a better world." I'm not arguing that non-proft is the "best," but a foundation may receive funding and/or grants from a consortium of various non-profit and for-profit organisations, individuals, and etc.. This does not necessarily make the foundation itself "for-profit." The foundation could operate under critical scrutiny of stakeholders.
If anything, I'd blame the lack of transparency to interested parties (e.g. donors) as the main factor of organisational failure. This applies to both for-profits and non-profits.
Most groups will not admit failure. This is because (IMO) we do 'groups' wrong.
What is a group? Its a bunch of individuals that come together to do something.
The problem is that the 'thing' groups come together to do, is different for different individuals. Some people are looking to find completion, some community, some a specific goals, others a series of goals, others want control, others want to learn, etc.
Groups should come together for a specific goals, and then be disbanded when that goal is met or cannot be met. The issue groups do not come together in this way - instead we create a structure that potentially runs in perpetuity (the governance structure is the most egregious example of this.)
If the goals are unclear, if the structure can be hijacked so that one individual is in a position of power over the others, at that point, the group is in conflict - some are winners some are losers. The ostensible goal may end in failure, but only for some in the group. In fact, for the winners, a sort of strung out failure is success! Just look at our political class - the system is failing and no one is happy, but they have converted their parasitic position into a win.
What is a group? Its a bunch of individuals that come together to do something.
The problem is that the 'thing' groups come together to do, is different for different individuals. Some people are looking to find completion, some community, some a specific goals, others a series of goals, others want control, others want to learn, etc.
Groups should come together for a specific goals, and then be disbanded when that goal is met or cannot be met. The issue groups do not come together in this way - instead we create a structure that potentially runs in perpetuity (the governance structure is the most egregious example of this.)
If the goals are unclear, if the structure can be hijacked so that one individual is in a position of power over the others, at that point, the group is in conflict - some are winners some are losers. The ostensible goal may end in failure, but only for some in the group. In fact, for the winners, a sort of strung out failure is success! Just look at our political class - the system is failing and no one is happy, but they have converted their parasitic position into a win.
> But I would argue that the best businesses are the ones that are for-profit, sustainable and ethical so you can attract the best people. You can sustain it because it’s a mission and it’s not just about the money—because there are diminishing returns to making money. There’s a diminishing marginal utility to the money in your life
This is ideological, in practice, just like non-profit fail to be profitable, for-profit fail to be ethical.
This is ideological, in practice, just like non-profit fail to be profitable, for-profit fail to be ethical.
Now that is a useful insight.
It's a big problem for voluntary associations. Companies can sometimes change their culture, but it usually requires replacing the CEO.
This has come up a few times in military history. "L'audace, toujours l'audace" was a WWI French slogan. It took a huge number of casualties before high command got it that charging into machine guns does not work. Courage does not help. In WWII, a big change was discovering that battleships are not useful once the enemy has torpedo bombers. The resistance of the battleship admirals was overcome by Congress, not the Navy. Congress ordered that the captains of aircraft carriers must be qualified to fly aircraft. Sidelining the "Gun Club" took major political effort.
Now, the US military is struggling with the "Fighter Mafia", which tends to run the USAF despite the ascendancy of drones and the usefulness of the A-10.