6. CLOSING REMARKS
From the beginning the panel emphasized the need to talk about learning from failure in our larger society so that we can be successful in the end state, while tolerating the inevitable failure along the way. It was asked, how do we get back to that leadership and discipline that our ancestors used to get us where we are today and not fall back on bureaucracy and process only to make it work, or in the worst case just to survive? It was Kadish’s insight into the mischaracterization of failure that set the stage. He submitted failure means you
don’t accomplish what you set out to as an end item; also said, failure is an option at every step except the final goal. This notion of failure was proposed in contrast to the common perception that failure must be avoided at every step along the way. The idea that failure is critical in the intermediate steps leading to the end objective was embraced by the panel. While failure at intermediate stages is often supported in rhetoric, in the face of failure the rhetoric evaporates, and the solution is often more process. It is this levying of more layers of bureaucracy as a natural reaction “process is to a bureaucracy as heroin is to an addict” as Thomas put it-which servesonly to allow leadership to feel like they did something. Unfortunately, improper wielding of process in response to failure also serves to diffuse the value of failure, diffuse the ability to learn from failure, and diffuse the chance to be successful through failure. Improper wielding of process in response to failure masks the opportunities available in failure. Namely, that failure provides the chance to reassess