Should We Tolerate Tolerance?

One of the reasons that I wanted to come to work for MSIS is that it seems like an organization not only willing to change but motivated to have it.  Change is not always good, but you can't get better without it.  Change comes with a certain amount of risk -- much of it borne by the change agent.  If we want to be change agents, we'll all need courage to step out of the pack and say unpopular things.  Here I go again!

We use the word "tolerate" a lot at MSIS.  Tolerance is built into the culture of the University and our country in general.  Lately, I've been thinking a lot about this word and I've decided I don't like it much.  Let me be clear, I don't happen to think that "tolerate" and "accept" are synonyms.  "Accept" implies that you've thought something through and despite a philosophical disagreement, you recognize the right of the situation to persist; you accept it.

Tolerate means you put up with something without confronting it.  Confrontation either brings about a change or at least a deeper understanding of both sides of the "thing" being tolerated.  Ultimately, confrontation brings about change or acceptance.  At least it provides closure of some kind, unlike tolerance which is an unresolved emotional condition.

Whether or not you agree with my semantic distinction, you will hopefully recognize the emotional differentiation between denying unresolved emotions and living with things you cannot change (having made the attempt).  This idea can have lots of implications for all sorts of human interactions, but I'd like to focus on a specific usage of the word "tolerate" within MSIS that started me thinking about it.

In Software Delivery, we have a large product portfolio.  Many of our products were developed years ago without the benefit of modern architecture and design techniques, let alone modern tools.  They can be difficult to maintain and even harder to enhance.  Faced with this situation, we ultimately have four choices:

1. Build something new
2. Fix (refactor) what we have
3. Buy something to replace what we have
4. Live with what we have

It is my understanding that if we think that we will eventually choose options #1, #2 or #3 for a product, we automatically put it into option #4 mode.  We call this "tolerate."  The problem is, we are not the only people being forced to tolerate applications in mode #4.  Our product owners and stakeholders must tolerate them as well.  And, they don't always get a vote.

Awhile back, I met with one of our product owners who has a product in "tolerate mode."  While she appreciated my attention, it was clear that she was both saddened and angry that her needs are being neglected.  We both understand that we don't have the resources to create software that does everything all of our users would like.  Yet, with one word, we think we can sweep the emotions behind our decisions away.  We cannot.

Tolerance is an act of denial.  It is an unwillingness to confront an uncomfortable situation.  We may be forced to accept a bad situation, but we should never tolerate it.  Doing so is an attempt to disavow the negativity associated with it.  In the case of our products, it means not facing each choice of whether to expend effort to improve the situation (for the stakeholders of a particular product) or accept that they will need to live with the deficiency.  My team grapples with these choices regardless of the mode the product is in.  Sadly, we have been known to hide behind the "tolerate" status and it always makes me uncomfortable.  I don't like unresolved situations.  Call me intolerant.  I probably deserve it.

Next time you find yourself tolerating a situation, ask yourself why you're doing it?  Are you afraid of a confrontation? Do you feel you need to have the answers before exposing your dissatisfaction with the status quo?  Do you fear possible reprisals for exposing your dissatisfaction?  Whatever your reason, know this: pent up emotions have consequences too.  They are rarely beneficial.