Naïve interventionism can cause harm in business in several ways. For instance, a manager might implement a new policy or procedure without fully understanding its implications, leading to unintended negative consequences. This could include decreased employee morale, reduced productivity, or even financial loss. Another example could be a company introducing a new product or service without adequately researching the market, leading to poor sales and wasted resources. In both cases, the intervention was made with good intentions, but due to a lack of understanding or foresight, it ended up causing harm.

Asked on the following book summary:

resource preview

Antifragile

Have you seen great ideas or apparently-solid organizations fail because of some random event or unexpected shock? Does your organization spend signif...

Start for free ⬇️

Download, customize, and translate hundreds of business templates for free

Go to dashboard to download stunning templates

Download

book summary Preview

View all chevron_right

Question was asked on:

Sometimes, intervention is necessary and desirable: the problem is with naïve interventionism that thinks it is making things better and does not recognize the harm it is causing. It's usually good to intervene to control things like size or speed. But often, the best course is not to intervene at all. Unfortunately, the modern world does not recognize this. Managers don't get rewarded for all the times they did not unnecessarily intervene.

Questions and answers

info icon

Yes, there are several organizations that have thrived by embracing the concept of antifragility. For instance, Amazon has shown antifragility by constantly evolving and adapting to changes in the market. They have diversified their business model, which has allowed them to withstand shocks and uncertainties. Another example is Tesla, which has embraced volatility and uncertainty in the electric car market and has come out stronger. These companies do not shy away from shocks or uncertainties, but rather use them as opportunities to learn, adapt, and grow stronger.

The concept of antifragility challenges the common practice of avoiding volatility or uncertainty in organizations by suggesting that these elements can actually be beneficial. Antifragility is a property of systems that increase in capability, resilience, or robustness as a result of stressors, shocks, volatility, noise, mistakes, faults, attacks, or failures. It is a concept beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better. Therefore, instead of avoiding uncertainty and volatility, organizations should embrace them as opportunities for improvement and growth.

View all questions
stars icon Ask another question