I recently had the pleasure to listen to Jim Collins speaking about what he has learned about successful leaders. Jim is the author of several bestselling books including Built to Last, Good to Great and his latest Great by Choice.
For his talk, Jim used examples from his latest book including the contrast between the approaches and results of two well-known South Pole explorers, Roald Amundsen and Robert Scott. One leader led his team to a successful end goal and the other led his team to defeat and an untimely death. What can be learned from their different approaches? Amundsen had prepared by studying the eating and traveling practices of the Eskimos. He believed in preparation and learning from practical experiences in similar environments. Scott saw himself more of an innovator and opted for motorized sleds even though they weren’t fully field-tested. If he had practiced and tried out his plans in advance he might have realized that the sled engines would freeze and that sled dogs were a better choice than ponies for his Plan B; ponies struggle in deep snow, require large amounts of food to be hauled, and sweat and freeze to death at those low temperatures.
Among a dozen different points on exceptional performers, Jim talked about three core behaviors that, in combination, distinguish top leaders he has studied:
- Fanatic Discipline: They display consistency in values, goals, methods and actions. They are relentlessly focused on their quests.
- Empirical Creativity: Exceptional leaders base their decisions and ideas on empirical evidence, direct observation and practical experimentation; they do not necessarily follow conventional wisdom or the opinions of peers or experts.
- Productive Paranoia: They are vigilant on potential threats and changes in the environment.
He had not discussed much on the topic of productive paranoia during his talk. During the Q&A, I was volunteered by my group to line up at the microphone and ask our top question.
- Me: “Do you have an easy way to tell the difference between productive and unproductive paranoia?”
- Jim smiles and asks: “Do you tend to be paranoid?”
- Me: “Why? Should I be?”
That would have been a clever answer for me : ) Instead I confessed that I was a little paranoid sometimes. A quality that I thought might be holding me back at times. But I was pleased to find out from Jim that I have the good kind of paranoia—productive paranoia. I hadn’t realized before that it is actually one of my good qualities!
Jim answered the question referring back to one of his prior examples. The bad paranoia is the kind that is always finding reasons why new ideas will not work, creating fear without real evidence, and discouraging any kind of change from the status quo. The good paranoia, productive paranoia, is the kind that identifies real risks based on facts, promotes experimentation, phased approaches, and other risk mitigation strategies with a focus on enabling innovation.
As an example, Amundsen’s philosophy was that you don’t wait until you’re in an unexpected storm to discover you need more strength, you don’t wait to be shipwrecked to determine if raw dolphin is good for you, you don’t wait until you’re on an Arctic expedition to become a superb cross-country skier and dog handler. You research the field, train with intensity, and plan for possible adverse conditions.
Amundsen was a strategic planner who built buffers for unforeseen events. When arranging his supply depots he staggered 20 markers in precise increments for miles along either side of his supply depots, allowing for a margin of error. He stored three tons of food for five men, and carried enough supplies on each leg of the trip to support his team if they missed one of the depot stops along way.
In contrast, Scott placed one marker on his primary supply depot and left no other markers. He had one ton of food for seventeen men at the start of his trip. Scott ran everything dangerously close and carried just enough to make it to each depot along way.
How does this apply to our business? It stresses the importance of productive paranoia and risk management as enablers to innovation versus the potentially progress-paralyzing fears of natural resistance to change. For example, small businesses may say they don’t have enough resources to take a risk, and large organizations may say they already have too much to risk in the business. That can be unproductive paranoia talking.
True innovation is something new... something different. And by nature, something new and different is a risk. But so is staying the same and never adapting while the market is changing all around us. It just doesn’t feel as risky because it doesn’t require a definitive action. Doing something innovative that puts the organization above competitors can change the market landscape and impact the bottom line exponentially.
Risk analysis should be part of any process improvement proposal. But if the risks are relatively low or can be managed, and the rewards are potentially high, the organization needs to move forward with proper risk mitigation strategies. It is okay to slow down and do the preparation needed for a proper project or product launch. Build a prototype, test it in the marketplace and see how it is received. Don’t skip the boring stuff like planning, failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), prototyping or testing, but don’t be paralyzed either by never-ending analysis.
Pursue your creativity with lots of discipline and a little productive paranoia ;)
Good luck in your endeavors.
Comments