Another examination of some really good observations I did not (somehow) cover in the first few posts I wrote about The Hard Thing About Hard Things.
The first was about CEO 'types'. One types loves to make complex decisions. This sort can spend an entire day thinking about strategy and gathering information. Two types enjoy making a company run well. Thinking about strategy makes the 'two type' gets antsy. However, these CEOs excel at optimizing process, creating accountability, or setting goals. Many organizations struggle when the CEO in charge is the wrong type to face the challenges facing the organization in the present moment.
The distinction reminded me of something I’ve noticed while following sports over the past two decades or so. Some coaches are like the first type. They excel at using their extensive knowledge to recruit new players and fit them into the team. Their teams become known for having strong cultures and a distinct style of play. Other coaches resemble the second type. These coaches are tactical masterminds and find ways to defeat teams boasting greater resources or talent.
The challenge for the sports teams does not differ from the one faced by any kind of organization. Most coaches tend toward one type or the other. As their strengths are applied to the team, the team starts to reflect the character of the coach. In order to remain balanced, the team will need an infusion of the other ‘type’ of leadership. At this point, the coach might become redundant if he or she lacks the skills needed to switch leadership styles. (1)
The second observation was a point about business books in general (2). Horowitz writes about how management books generally study ‘peacetime’ companies. He defines ‘peacetime’ companies as any having an edge on competitors in a growing market. They can reinforce their strengths while aiding ongoing market expansion. The other type of company is one ‘at war’. In this state, companies are fending off existential threats and doing everything in their power to survive one more day.
These conditions require radically different CEO mentalities. In peace, leaders must encourage broad creativity. In war, leaders must require obedience and alignment with a singular objective. To navigate both requires CEOs intuitively understand when to follow management principles and when to discard them (3).
So, what’s the problem with writing about peacetime companies? I have two possible answers. First, it is easy to get away with mistakes when things are going well. A writer on the outside might look at these mistakes and not understand how harmful applying the same techniques would be in any other context. Workplace quality is one such example. As The Business Bro commented in his post about this book, when things are going well, it doesn’t always matter if the company is a good place to work or not. But if the organization is in trouble, it can make the difference between success and failure because people will stay and fight for an organization they like working for.
The second reason is the fact that most businesses fail. Logically, a business will enter a ‘wartime’ situation before it fails. Having the right skills to stay afloat is required for survival; therefore, any business that still exists must have these skills (and if the the business does fail, there isn't an outwardly obvious reason to write about it). Since there are no obvious differences in survival skill among businesses that still exist, I imagine it is very challenging for a writer to determine whether one business is better equipped with survival skills than another.
Footnotes / imagined complaints
1. Some coaches get around this problem through delegation!
Delegation seems like a good solution in general. Couldn’t a CEO of the first type seek out executives of the second type? I suspect the obstacle to this approach is ego, a problem far easier to point out than resolve. If a ‘thinking’ CEO hands over certain decision-making responsibilities and the company does well, who should really get the credit?
2. And, more specifically, about Jim Collins.
Horowitz makes a couple of snippy remarks about the 'wisdom' of business books written by authors who’ve never run a business. I’ve read some of Collins’s work over the years and I'm pretty certain the comments are aimed directly at Good To Great, a book I received as a gift for my college graduation.
3. Sports, again…
The peacetime/wartime distinction brings to mind yet another sports comparison. Some teams are simply better at winning close games than others. I think a coach or a captain with a ‘wartime’ mentality leads these teams. In a close game, they quickly discard the notion of playing with creativity, flourish, or flair. They simply focus themselves and their teams on the singular task of winning the game and demand full commitment to the task from those around them.
