Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!shelby!siegman@sierra
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Group projects
Message-ID: <159@sierra.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 20 Jul 90 16:35:11 GMT
References: <1990Jul17.120036.8944@pdn.paradyne.com> <804@qusunitg.queensu.CA> <1990Jul19.215334.28746@nmt.edu>
Sender: siegman@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 52

In article <1990Jul19.215334.28746@nmt.edu> john@nmt.edu (John Shipman) writes:

> I can think of arguments both for and against this.
>
>In industry, if a project fails, excuses are futile, because
>even though there was a ``good reason'' for the failure, you
>have still failed, and the marketplace is unforgiving.  If
>the company is a start-up, one failure can be fatal.
>
>I think it is very important to get people in the habit of
>succeeding, especially people who are bound for industry.

   I think you left out some of the other major arguments against this
"success-oriented" or "only success is allowed" attitude.  Like, if
only success is allowed, then whatever outcome occurs will be called
"success", whether it is or not.  (People used to call this lying --
and lying to yourself, at that).

    The Air Force fosters a similar "only success is allowed" attitude
as an institutionalized atitude among its officers.  I read in the
paper this morning that the aerospace company making the Stealth
bomber has been cheating the Air Force, and making false progress
reports and claims of success, for years.  But no legal action can be
taken against them, because it's clear that the Air Force knew it was
going on and did nothing about it.  Negative reports weren't wanted --
only successful ones.

    The Challenger launch was based on a success-oriented decision.

    If only success is allowed, business management will never get
honest reports from lower down in the hierarchy.  If the boss doesn't
want to hear it, the troops sure won't pass the bad news along.
Doesn't sound healthy to me.

    Remember that last consumer product you bought, that didn't work,
or had egregious design and manufacturing flaws, should never have
been on the market.  Probably designed by a "success-oriented"
engineering team, who had to meet a marketing deadline or else.

    Remember the Vietnam body counts.  Success-oriented for sure.

    Obviously I'm going far beyond what Mr. Shipman said or, I'm sure,
intended in his message, and I certainly don't mean to imply that he
proposes or condones any of these abuses.  I agree that it's important
to get people to be success-oriented, or results-oriented, and from an
early age.  I agree that people should be motivated and rewarded for
pitching in and making extra efforts to get the job done, and "make it
work".  But this "success-oriented" attitude can be (and has been)
badly abused, and can lead to serious disasters.  Not lying to
yourself about the situation is enormously more important than being
success-oriented -- and therefore should be rewarded (and very often
isn't).