For those who are unfamiliar with the terms "outliers" and "positive deviance," the former refers to "an observation or phenomenon that is numerically distant from the rest of the data," an "extreme deviation from the mean." Malcolm Gladwell has written a book, Outliers: The Story of Success, in which he examines a number of individuals such as Bill Gates who become peak performers. As for "positive deviance," Richard Pasquale, Jerry Sternin, and Monique Sternin explain it as an awkward, oxymoronic term. "The concept is simple: look for outliers who succeed against all odds...The basic premise is this: (1) Solutions to seemingly intractable problems already exist, (2) they have been discovered by members of the community itself, and (3) these innovators (individual positive deviants) have succeeded even though they share the same constraints and barriers as others."
The co-authors acknowledge that the positive deviance process is not suitable for everything and suggest that "the process excels over most alternatives when addressing problems that "(1) are enmeshed in a complex social system, (2) require social and behavioral change, and (3) entail solutions that are rife with unforeseeable or unintended consequences." Also, this process should be at least considered when the given problems are viewed as "intractable" after prior solutions failed. Moreover, the process redirects attention from "what's wrong" to "what's right" - observable exceptions that succeed "against all odds."
I can personally attest that, on the basis of my extensive experience with corporate teams involved in process improvement initiatives (e.g. to reduce cycle time, improve first pass yield), the PD approach is almost always the best to take. Presumably the co-authors will not object if I suggest that "what doesn't work" and "what does work" could - and probably should - be used instead of "what's right" and "what's wrong." If I understand the authors (and I may not), they assert that the PD approach improves the chances of answering questions and solving problems that might not otherwise be accessible. Just as this PD approach is not suitable for every task or objective, it is also not suitable for everyone who could become involved.
So, when and how to decide which approach to use? The co-authors acknowledge that the standard model is probably the best course of action for roughly 70-80% of change problems encountered. "But when empirical experience leads us to conclude, 'we've tried everything and nothing works,' harnessing local understanding may be the only way to break the impasse." I agree while noting that (a) most change initiatives fail or at least fall far short of expectations and (b) most of those failures are the result of insufficient engagement but those "in the trenches" during the implementation process.
The bulk of the material in this book focuses on how the PD approach has helped to alleviate some of the world's toughest problems associated with childhood malnutrition in Vietnam, female circumcision in Egypt, hospital infections, "early wins, squandered gains" at Merck, and "girl soldiers" in Uganda. In these and other situations, the co-authors explain a natural progression of change within evolutionary systems that can be incorporated into the PD approach: change can disrupt prolonged equilibrium, "a precursor to death or stagnation"; an invitation to become involved in change requires those who accept to vacate a comfort zone (what James O'Toole characterizes as "the ideology of comfort and the tyranny of custom") and share ownership of challenges to orthodoxies that create turbulence; change agents become self-organized as new forms and new solutions emerge from the inevitable tumult; and of course, there are unintended consequences because living systems "do not follow a linear path. One can disturb them in a manner that approximates a desired outcome - but never fully direct them."
I congratulate Richard Pasquale, Jerry Sternin, and Monique Sternin on a brilliant achievement. The information and insights they provide in abundance substantially increase their reader's (this reader's) understanding of "nature's way" (i.e. modularization, selective variation, preservation of cultural and biological DNA, and the natural progression of change) and, especially, the implications for those in positions of authority. They call for "nothing less than a role reversal in which experts become learners, teachers become students, and authority figures become catalysts for bottom-up change." In my opinion, this book is an operations manual for change initiatives that could perhaps save the human race. I invite those who challenge that assertion to read...and then re-read...this book.
