Positive deviancy refers to that person or group of people who already consistently rise above standard and does what is wished for or expected. The message communicated by that example is that it is possible to excel or embody success, even in spite of what the majority is doing. Positive deviance is very useful because if there is one example, it is possible to replicate that example and make it happen more frequently and/or more consistently. Those who deviate towards greater success provide useful models which we can then replicate.
It is should be expected that we are compelled to find out how positive deviances happens, but, the amazing response of people is frequently to ignore it or even trash it. This is particularly the case in a working environment. Given the fact that the mindset of management is to fix things, it is inevitable that they would pay attention to what is wrong, or not working; negative deviances, in other words, become more important than anything else. Management forgets about the success stories and worry about the failures. The positive deviance is further ignored by reasons/excuses about how it is just “luck” or the result of something (a person or personality; work conditions; context; etc) which is not replicable.
Some challenging thoughts about why it is justified to ignore positive deviances are:
- It is a deviance, not like the rest or the existing pattern. The pattern becomes the norm and stops inquisitiveness about the occurrence of positive exceptions: “this is the way it is.”
- Fixing things might get you average, or mediocrity but not excellence. Positive deviants demonstrate the qualitative difference in the process they do that leads to the different outcome. Doing the right things are not necessarily appropriate to change the outcome. From projects done by the author about successful safety practices in the construction and bulk moving industries, it is clear that the “how” of visually felt leadership practices is definitive. The kinds of questions asked and what is being paid attention to determines whether VFL contributes to safety or not.
- Max Bazerman wrote a book called “Predictable Surprises” in which he describes how people deny and justify information which could lead to more effective preparation for major catastrophes. The same kind of argumentation is heard when it comes to find and understand successes inside a given organization. Cynically, the source of this unwillingness to see things as they are around the “good news” is the inconvenience of dealing with the positive exception by a mind trained to find what is broken.
- Dealing with, and cultivating positive deviances, is not for the faint hearted. It is virtually a rule that these positive exceptions point an accusing finger at the existing norm and standard practices, and by implication challenges the management practices which upholds the way things happen.
- It seems to be a destructive human trait to trust bad news more than one trusts good news, as if fixing broken things is more valid than exploring the process leading to good news. We believe bad news quicker and more firmly than we are convinced of good news. When things go wrong after it had been good news, it still takes the challenge of fixing, but not availing oneself of the
initial good news must be considered a loss, surely?
Any thinking which prevents curiosity about positive deviances is a thought virus that is just destructive, and the price is a missed opportunity to learn and cultivate success. Do not be shy to learn from top performers, especially when their level of performance goes against the norm.