We Were Meant To Fail

Changing A System

Introduction

Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. Resisting the impulse to act is also one of the hardest things we have to do in life. It is uniquely maddening to feel like you know better in a situation but to not have the power to influence events.

We smash up against these barriers to action most often in our careers where ‘the done thing’ and ‘the best thing’ exist in endless conflict. What then, is the best way to change a workplace, a culture or an institution?

---

Tough It Out

Let’s say you take the path of patience and sink slowly into the routines of your new environment and leave people’s feathers firmly unruffled. You hold in your heart a simmering commitment to change and innovation but you don’t wear it as a badge of honour - or a target for others to aim at.

The benefit of this approach is that you gain trust. You’re a safe hand. You’re not calling people slow, inefficient or out of date in their methods. It’s a humble approach. Perhaps you know better in some instances but you’ll defer to others respectfully. Eventually, you’ll build up enough good will to finally do things your way. Change will be achieved, but incrementally.

The drawback is that it’s slow, and slowness runs the risk of disillusionment. By the time you reach the point where you can change things you might be conditioned out of boldness, beaten down and lacking that fire that compelled you to start in the first place. Getting along might look more appealing than it was before. Calm waters are serene now. Why risk rocking the boat? I mean after all… things are fine, and this boat also contains your colleagues too, it would be almost unfair to make sweeping changes.

---

Shake It Up

This is the path of the fighter aiming at a vision. You’re happy to take on anyone who acts as a roadblock and relish the chaos and conflict that entails. You’re banking on the sheer force of your personality and quality of your ideas to win out in the end.

The benefit of this approach is that it’s committal. People know what you stand for which brings about clarity since others need to decide how they’ll react to you. Will they have their long list of reasons for why something ‘cannot be done’ or ‘has been tried before and didn’t work'? Will they get onboard and unleash the dormant innovator’s spirit within them? Will they pretend to be a supporter whilst hoping you fail? Regardless of where the pieces place themselves on the board, no one will be in doubt about what you stand for. People might relish rallying around a cause - it’s unifying. That in itself might generate enough momentum to power through many problems.

The drawback of this style is that you will have to fight deep-rooted forces. You might alienate people from the start and never get the upper hand again. People don’t have a reason to change - you have to give them one. To be able to do that, it makes more sense to know them well first. Rushing has a cost.

---

Middling

Balance is often the answer when two stark choices are on offer. There is a slender divide between balance and mediocrity though. There is wisdom in moderation but when change is your aim it’s a dangerous game. Moderates or centrists are some names for people whose views aren’t at either extreme end of a spectrum. But there is no name for someone who holds extreme views on both ends of the spectrum at the same time.

This, to my mind, is also a form of balance. It’s a balance of tension where you live suspended between the competing forces that pull you. This is not a peaceful zen like state but rather one conducive to eternal restlessness. A person possessed of such a mind will maintain their edge and stay sharp.

---

Failure As Fuel

“We were meant to fail” - this is the line a friend of mine said to me recently. He was describing how he and a group of others had found their time going from the creatively unbridled world of startups and the private sector to the molasses of government institutions.

His insight was that the key to making change happen was to fail. Not ultimate failure, or intentional self-sabotage, but simply putting yourself in positions where you get to see what doesn’t work and why. It’s about confronting the problems at the ground level and, in some sense, making the problems emotional too. You tried something and it didn’t work and it hurts. That bothers you. Maybe it even pisses you off. If so, good. That’s the point. This repeated exposure to the problems and challenges strips you of any idealism while the pain of failure keeps you sharp and engaged.

Success, especially in a workplace full of processes, depends a lot on having the right habits. But habits alone are not enough to bring about change. You need a spark, and this comes from an emotional spike.

If you think there’s something wrong, that something should change, then that should be reflected in the way you feel. Can repeated failure break you down? Of course it can. But succeeding in a system that’s broken is far more dangerous.