 Christine planned a party and personally invited fifteen other people she knew. She had called each one up and assured that they were interested in getting together before she even decided that it was to be in costume. She and her best friend Debra were the only ones who showed up, the ones she had contacted wanted to get together, but not in costume. When we make mistakes in interpersonal relations, they are confined to the people involved. When it is in larger groups, it is likely to get published to all those who are involved and to others as well. This is a cost associated with errors, and Christine's social error will be known by many more than were invited. This provides two things that needs to be considered when taking action to bring people together. The first is that there is almost always some level of error just from the variability of the people involved. The second is that the cost of the error is likely to be temporary, especially for those who are in their teenage years. A good planner would have expected that some of the invited guests would not make it to the party and consider having enough for all to be a contingency only. For teenagers, those growing toward adult responsibility, the error is not only forgivable but actually expected for early tries. The young are learning, not acting from experience. If Christine had sought the aid of an adult, she almost certainly would have been told to assure that her invitees were interested in her idea of a party before acting on it. Be that as it may, Christine would be expected to learn a lesson of respect for others, a respect for their ability to decide whether they will come. It is most unlikely, after this embarrassing incident, that Christine would ever make this mistake again. Experience can be a harsh and effective teacher. She would be far more effective in contacting others, making sure that they had a good expectation of what the party would entail, and that their interest was actually in attending. The personal value determinations of others are the essential for any gathering of people. Tony, a teenager concerned with the appearance of his small country church, notes that Mr. Thomas has been ill and unable to weed the flower beds around the facility. He announces a Saturday effort to spruce up the appearance of the church and invites all other attendees to do their part as well. Only two others show up and both have limited time to commit to the effort. He does what he can, but they only get a little of the needed work accomplished. Having a good cause is rarely enough to gather people for a performance effort. There are too many things to do that have value, and people usually have demands already placed upon their time and effort. The mistake is an obvious one. The value has not been established to the point where other church members are willing to commit their time and effort to it. To bring their efforts into coordination, Tony is going to have to assure that they have such valued results that they will be willing to redirect their time and effort to its accomplishment. One possible approach might be to address how their efforts will be seen by others as their contribution, perhaps supporting a temporary sign placed in one of the flower beds that witnesses to their contribution for all to see. Perhaps it can be a special gathering for a welcome-back luncheon when Mr. Thomas is able to return to his duties so that he gets to honor those who filled in for him. Thomas' thinking is a tool for keeping focus on needs. Tony needs to recognize that he values the appearance of the church so that he is committing his time and effort to its maintenance. He needs to address the same black box logic to others in the congregation. Can he make this a family day? Something that whole families can participate in together. A way to teach children about civic duties. Can this be leveraged as a way for church attendees to increase their ability to trust one another? The more effective Tony is in communicating the potential for value, the more others will be willing to commit their personal time and effort to the corporate purpose. Performance thinking does not solve the problem, but it is an intellectual tool that supports the one who is being effective. It is a tool that can aid the teenager in learning to be effective as an adult. Even with such application, many attempts at gaining coordination among others are going to fail. That is the nature of reality. There are causes that are personally sufficient to put oneself in action that are insufficient to support action commitments by others. What is important for teenage applications is beyond even the success of the coordinated effort. It is learning to be effective. It is developing such an understanding of others and their wants and needs that experience becomes a reasonable guide for taking effective action in the future. That is the deeper purpose. It is always support for intelligent attempts to be effective.