| Course | WMBA 6020 Fostering a Culture of Innovation |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Discussion post |
| Length | About 530 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6020 Week 3
Week 3 Discussion: Does Failure Really Teach Where You Work?
The Poster Says Fail Forward; Her Review Said Meets Expectations: What Happened to the Manager Behind a Declined Deed Fraud Alert, and What It Teaches Everyone Watching
Ashgrove, the fictional title company at the center of my work this term, hangs a poster in every office that reads "Fail forward." The company says that failure teaches. The best test of that claim is what happened to the last person whose project was stopped.
Two years ago M. R., a branch manager in Kentucky, spent about four months of her own time, with two examiners, building an alert service that would notify homeowners whenever a deed or mortgage was recorded against their property. Underwriting counsel declined to approve a pilot, citing unresolved liability. That decision may have been reasonable. What followed is the evidence. M. R.'s annual review dropped from "exceeds" to "meets expectations," and the written comments noted "time diverted from core production." The next year a regional director position opened, and she was not interviewed. Neither examiner has proposed anything since. Nobody in Kentucky would call this punishment, but everyone I have asked about it knows the story. When I asked one examiner why she had not suggested anything since, she said she had "seen how that goes." That sentence is the culture.
So my answer is no: at Ashgrove, failure does not teach, or rather it teaches the wrong lesson, that ideas outside core production are a career risk. Lee et al. (2004) found that people under high evaluative pressure experimented less when an organization's stated values supported experimentation but its rewards did not, while people under little evaluative pressure actually experimented more under the same mixed signals. Branch managers live under exactly that pressure, with monthly targets for closings and cycle time. The poster raises the stated value; the review shows the real one.
There is also evidence from outside the firm that tolerance pays. In a study of venture-backed companies that went public, Tian and Wang (2014) found that firms backed by investors more willing to keep funding underperforming ventures were significantly more innovative. If patient money produces more invention among startups, a 92-year-old insurer that penalizes one stopped proposal should not expect its branches to offer a second.
How would you tell the difference between real tolerance for failure and the kind that disappears at review time?
Reply to Priya
Priya, you said your agency tolerates failure because no one was fired after the grant management software project collapsed. I'd suggest that "not fired" is a low bar. Did the project lead get another project of similar size? In my case, the manager kept her job but lost her standing, and her team stopped proposing ideas.
Reply to Thomas
Thomas, your point that leaders signal tolerance through their reaction in the first meeting after a failure is a good one. Detert and Burris (2007), in a study of more than 3,000 restaurant employees, found that a manager's openness predicted speaking up more reliably than a transformational style did, and that feeling safe carried the effect. That fits your example: the regional manager's calm reaction may have mattered more than any policy.
References
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
Lee, F., Edmondson, A. C., Thomke, S., & Worline, M. (2004). The mixed effects of inconsistency on experimentation in organizations. Organization Science, 15(3), 310-326. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0076
Tian, X., & Wang, T. Y. (2014). Tolerance for failure and corporate innovation. Review of Financial Studies, 27(1), 211-255. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr130
WMBA 6020 Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
Failure tolerance discussions ask students whether their organization's stated acceptance of failure holds in practice. Prompts often ask students to describe what happened to someone whose project failed or was canceled, and to judge the organization's real tolerance from that evidence. Instructors expect a concrete case rather than general impressions, attention to consequences such as reviews, promotions and later assignments, and a source that explains why mixed signals matter. The post itself is normally under four hundred words. Replies are expected to test whether classmates have confused stated tolerance with the kind that survives a performance review. Students should protect the identity of anyone they describe. A clear yes or no answer, defended with evidence, reads better than a balanced survey.
How the WMBA 6020 Week 3 example is put together
The post opens with the poster's slogan and proposes a test: what happened to the last person whose project stopped. The case follows in detail: four months of work, counsel's decision, a lower review rating with a written comment, a missed interview and two examiners who stopped proposing. A paragraph answers the question and cites Lee and colleagues on how people under evaluative pressure respond to inconsistent signals, linking that pressure to branch targets. A short paragraph adds Tian and Wang's study of venture-backed companies as evidence that tolerance pays. A question asks how to tell real tolerance from the stated kind. One reply argues that not being fired is too low a bar; the other supports a classmate's point about leaders' reactions with Detert and Burris on managerial openness.
Where the marks sit in the WMBA 6020 Week 3 rubric
Graders reward a post built on one concrete case with documented consequences, not a general description of culture. Distinguishing stated values from what reviews and promotions reward shows the critical thinking the prompt is after. A source explaining why mixed signals suppress experimentation adds depth, especially when linked to the organization's own pressures. Evidence from outside the organization that tolerance has value strengthens the argument. Replies earn credit for raising the standard of evidence or adding a relevant study. A final question pushing peers to look hard at their own workplaces keeps the thread going. Rubrics also reward respectful handling of named individuals, here by initials and role. Timely posting, concise writing and APA citations complete what graders expect.
Common WMBA 6020 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Find the most recent project in your organization that was stopped or failed and trace what happened to the people involved, especially in reviews, assignments and promotions. Compare that with what leaders say about failure. Decide whether the stated value holds, and say so directly. Students often lose marks by describing a culture as supportive because no one was fired, when quieter consequences tell a different story. Another frequent gap is treating a single leader's kind words as evidence of tolerance. Look for what colleagues learned by watching. Use initials or roles and leave out details that would identify anyone. In replies, ask what evidence a classmate has beyond policy. For a custom sample post on a failed project in your own workplace, send us the outline of what happened.
Get a WMBA 6020 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Drop in the Week 3 discussion prompt, its reply requirements, and the rubric; a complete thread returns in 24-48h, the first one carrying no charge. Note how many replies your section requires and by which day, since that shapes what gets drafted. Replies have to answer real classmates in your own thread, so use those as a register guide rather than as text.
More WMBA 6020 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6020 Week 1: Innovation Types Post
- WMBA 6020 Week 2: Culture Model Assessment
- WMBA 6020 Week 4: Better Place Failure Analysis
- WMBA 6020 Week 5: Idea Pipeline Design
- WMBA 6020 Week 6: Leadership Practices Design
- WMBA 6020 Week 7: Culture Change Proposal
- WMBA 6020 Week 8: Final Proposal and Reflection
- WMBA 6030 Week 3: Data Investment Memo
- WMBA 6010 Week 3: Team Stage Diagnosis
- WMBA 6040 Week 3: Performance Measures Defense
- WMBA 6000 Week 3: Leadership Self-Assessment
WMBA 6020 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6020 Week 3 sample paper?
The failure tolerance post appears here in full, followed by both replies.
What happened to the manager whose idea was stopped?
Her review rating fell, the comments cited time diverted from core work and she was not interviewed for a promotion.
Does failure teach at the company?
No; it teaches that ideas outside core production carry a career risk.
What did Lee and colleagues find?
People under high evaluative pressure experimented less when values supported experimentation but rewards did not.
What evidence shows tolerance pays?
Tian and Wang found firms backed by more failure-tolerant investors were more innovative.