174. Sterling Hawkins: Discomfort Is Your Most Valuable Feedback Loop

/0 Comments/in /by

Negative feedback loops are the ultimate source of value. Mises called it “uneasiness and the image of a more satisfactory state”. Bill Gates said that “Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning”. Negative feedback loops give us the opportunity to improve our service delivery capacity, and the value proposition behind it. Sterling Hawkins has identified the ultimate feedback loop for personal performance. He calls it discomfort. We should seek discomfort, analyze it, understand it, and utilize it as an ultimate tool for improvement. His book is titled Hunting Discomfort (Mises.org/E4B_174_Book) and we talk to him about it on the Economics For Business podcast.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

Discomfort is a feedback system.

There will always be physical, mental, emotional, or even spiritual discomfort in our lives. It’s necessary and useful. It signals to us how we are interacting with our environment. It keeps us oriented. Sterling’s case is that we shouldn’t try to avoid it, we should embrace it – he recommends that we actively practice hunting discomfort. Once we find it and embrace it we work our way through it, and the result is personal growth. We get better.

First, face reality.

The first discomfort Sterling outlines is facing reality. In business, we often say that it’s a great challenge to align the firm’s internal assessment of reality with what is actually going on in the external environment, especially in times of rapid change. We may just not see reality accurately. Our product may not be as well-liked by customers as our research tells us it is.

We can’t change reality, but we can change how we see it. We can change our belief structure. One way is to run many experiments where we can objectively and empirically measure results, and expand on what works and discard what doesn’t. We might find some things that work that we didn’t believe could. And we might find that we thought worked simply does not. Both represent valuable learning and provide us with a reality we can grasp.

Eliminate self-doubt.

Self-doubt is mentally wrestling with questions and beliefs and insecurities. It’s the world of “I might” rather than “I will”. Sterling’s advice is that self-doubt can be a gift. It indicates an unwillingness or inability to commit. And yet commitment is often associated with entrepreneurial success. It’s part of what Professor Peter Klein calls entrepreneurial judgment: the capacity to choose which action to take and to follow through with it.

Choose your commitment as wisely as you can – which includes choosing those actions not to take. Sterling’s metaphor is Get A Tattoo. It’s an irreversible commitment everyone can see.

Some people find discomfort in exposure.

If you commit, you might feel more exposure than you’re comfortable with. You might have to raise money, when it’s not your skill. You may have to make a presentation about which you’re not feeling 100& comfortable. You might be the only one expressing disagreement in a meeting full of groupthinkers.

Sterling’s recipe is to assemble a support group — he calls it your street gang. They’re supporters, subject matter experts, mentors. You’ll make your commitment to them, and they in turn will give you honest feedback, trust, and loyalty. You’ll still be committed but you won’t feel so exposed.

We take on greater and greater challenges — and that’s uncomfortable.

As businesses take shape and grow, the challenges only get bigger. We might get to the point where we want to avoid some of the big challenges. But that’s the wrong viewpoint. The alternative is to turn challenges into an opportunity to find new ways to utilize our resources — to use them as a portal to advance from the status quo to a new reality. The method is reframing. What if you tried the opposite of the status quo solution? What if you looked at the challenge through someone else’s eyes, using their mental model rather than your own – what would they do? What if you change the assumptions about the way you’re addressing the challenge? There are many ways to reframe challenges, and reframing can release you and give you new energy.

The greatest discomfort is uncertainty.

Economists talk endlessly about uncertainty in business. It’s a consequence of the unknowable future. But you own your own uncertainty — for entrepreneurs, it’s a feeling, not an economic concept. It’s subjective. We’re not only uncertain about outcomes, but about resources, about financing, about our capacity, about our partners. Uncertainty is multi-dimensional. It’s also guaranteed — we can’t avoid it.

Economists, therefore, say that entrepreneurs bear uncertainty. It’s what they do. It comes with the job. Sterling’s word is surrender: don’t fight or fear uncertainty, but accept it willingly as a cost. Give up resistance. Get into your discomfort zone. Entrepreneurs need to be doing hard things most of the time, however uncomfortable that might be.

Additional Resources

Hunting Discomfort. How To Get Breakthrough Results In Life And Business No Matter What by Sterling Hawkins: Mises.org/E4B_174_Book

Visit SterlingHawkins.com

Customer Value Is All That Matters In Business.

/0 Comments/in /by

Value creation is – or should be – the number one concern of every business and everyone in business. The term means value for customers. If a firm does not generate value for customers, it is not in business and can’t possibly serve other constituencies like employees, shareholders, stakeholders, and local communities.

Businesspeople must think deeply about value and understand it fully, and it’s not always the case that they do. Let’s start at a higher level than the business firm, at the level of the economy. What is an economy? It’s how well-off a group of people make themselves with the resources they have available to them to work with. It’s the shared well-being of that group of people. It’s their quality of life, their enjoyment, and their satisfaction. In other words, the economy is not just the goods and services we produce or the dollars we exchange with each other to buy and sell goods and services. The economy is value that is generated for people – feelings of satisfaction, of joy and reassurance, and security, of meeting not just functional but also emotional and spiritual needs. The pursuit of economic value takes on purpose and meaning when it’s viewed through the eyes of people – and people are customers for business.

If we now return our focus to the level of the individual firm and its customers, we realize that value generation at this level in the economy must embrace and address the same feelings of satisfaction, joy, emotion, and spirituality. These feelings must be present in the value propositions that businesses make to customers. Each individual customer’s current state is a dynamic function of multiple values that they are trying to balance. You can refer to various analytical models for people’s value bundles. Here’s one called the Schwartz Theory of Individual Values. A quick look tells you that people are integrating values as diverse as pleasure, conformity, and security (and many more) into their everyday decisions and choices. The balance changes in every situation and from moment to moment.

Any business engaged with any customer at all must be conscious of the range of individual and cultural values that are in people’s minds and consciousness. If your customer is part of a firm in a B2B relationship with you, then you need to take account of the shared values of the firm you are dealing with, which will color and shape the decision-making of the individual you are engaged with.

From this perspective, value creation can be seen as pretty complex. Quite forbidding, even. How do businesses manage? There are a couple of simplifying approaches.

Get the direction right.

Value is a process. Your customer is continuously learning about value – what they themselves value in any specific situation and at any specific time. Their evaluation is changing. But they are seeking one direction, which we can call betterment: improving their feelings of satisfaction. Value is a change in status from one of less well-being to one of greater well-being. It is an increase in well-being. That means that you may not need to understand every nuance of the balance of the customer’s multi-functional values system. You just need to measure and monitor whether their feeling of well-being and satisfaction is moving in the right direction, towards betterment.

Get aligned.

While it is probably too demanding to try to identify every position of every customer on every vector of the Schwartz Value System or one like it, there is a less demanding way of value mirroring, and that’s alignment. If your position on your own value system is reasonably well aligned with your customer’s (you’re not in conflict, at least), and perhaps even better aligned than your competitor’s, then there’s a good chance of forming a value partnership: you make a value proposition that they can feel good about accepting. Alignment comes from an analysis of what matters. What matters most to your customer? You can ask them; it’s often very hard for them to articulate their values, but they might be able to answer a question about what’s important to them, at least at this time, in this situation, and regarding this deal. (Bill Sanders told us how just asking the question can “expand the value pie” in any contract negotiation with any customer.)

If what you think matters is close to what the client thinks matters, then there is the opportunity to become value partners, to make a deal or make a sale or make an exchange.

Empathy And Knowing Your Customer.

The business skill that underpins the generation of customer value is empathy. This is not a casual “get inside the customer’s head” routine. Value empathy is a product of the rapidly advancing knowledge of neuroscience that is spreading into business methods, combined with an understanding of complex adaptive systems thinking. Empathy starts from the concept of a mental model – a way of seeing the world and processing the information gleaned from sensory inputs – hearing, seeing, touching – into an individually cogent perspective. Every individual operates a unique and different mental model. The process of empathy is first to construct someone else’s mental model – the customer’s – and then run new information through it – the new value proposition that the business wants them to consider. If the business has constructed the customer’s mental model accurately, it should be possible to make a reasonable prediction as to how they will react to the value proposition. It’s not infallible, but it’s also not guessing, not projecting, and not wishful thinking. It’s not even marketing – that comes later if the business wants to attempt to change or modify the customer’s mental model. There’s a learning process, and humility is called for in thinking about customers’ complex mental processes.

Empathy is knowledge-based, unlike sympathy, which is emotional. Therefore, the more a business knows its customers and the more they know about their customers, the greater the potential for an accurate empathic diagnosis of the customer’s mental model. The first step in value creation is selecting the right customers for your business – customers you can know well and will enjoy knowing.

A Value-Dominant Business Culture.

Many of the criticisms aimed at big corporations today are the result of businesses’ failure to understand value. The claim to maximize shareholder value, but this is a financial calculation, not the generation of valued experiences for customers which is the true purpose of business. They claim to pursue stakeholder value, where the term stakeholder is amorphous, but generally taken to include employees, the population of the communities in which offices and factories are located, sometimes the environment, and sometimes even the government. None of these business activities fall under the true heading of value creation – only customer value fits. All else follows: profits (signals from the customer that they fully approve of the value they receive), stock price appreciation (reflecting the discounted future cash flows from satisfied customers), and stakeholder benefits (profitable companies with a loyal customer base are more likely to support all of their other constituencies).

Customer value takes care of all the other values. That’s why it’s all that matters.

173. Rene Rodriguez: Unleashing Voluntary Energy Via Influence

/0 Comments/in /by

How do we change others’ behavior? In business, it’s a challenge we face every moment. Can we persuade a customer to switch to our brand or service? Can we get the board or the C-Suite to approve our proposal? Can we convince a VC to fund our startup? The common denominator across all these tasks is influence. How do we make the case with sufficient influence? The solution lies in using tools informed by Neuroscience. Economics For Business talks with Rene Rodriguez about his book Amplify Your Influence (Mises.org/E4B_173_Book), and his research into the neuroscience behind influential interpersonal communication.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights.

Influence is a determinant of business success.

In the past, there was a classification distinction between “soft skills” in business management and the more highly respected quantitative capabilities of finance and strategic planning. Today, that is no longer the case. The ability to harness communication to change others’ behavior is fundamental to making progress in the business world, and an inability in this area means an executive or manager will be perceived as ineffective. Setting out a vision that no-one follows is fatal.

Influence is also the way to help people make better choices for themselves.

Influence can be considered by some to be manipulation, but there is absolutely no need for that perspective. Influence may be exerted to help people better evaluate the choices and options open to them. Influence is providing information that may not otherwise have been available to the audience, or that had not been considered in the most appropriate light. Influence unleashes what Rene Rodriguez terms “voluntary energy”; they are pleased and delighted to be offered a better decision-making path.

There is hard science behind the soft skills of influence.

Influence is applied neuroscience. Neuroscience explains how and why humans resist change. It’s a threat. The first reaction to any new information is often resistance. We don’t like to question what we believe we know, or abandon the guidelines on which we’ve been operating, or change the heuristics we use. It’s a common, shared trait.

That’s why influence is the “how” of leadership: influencing behavior change when the natural response is to resist it. It’s also the goal of marketing, teaching, managing, selling, and communicating.

It pays to learn a little bit about neuroscience for each of these actions.

The power to influence can be amplified by using three techniques.

As with any business tool, there are techniques that can be perfected to improve the performance in use. Rene highlighted three:

Sequencing: The brain processes information in certain sequences. First, it looks for threats (like “change” or “new ideas”) in order to sort between danger and safety. If it perceives a threat, it shuts down – no influential communication will get through, Next it seeks value – feelings of being valued, being engaged, being inspired. The right sequence of message delivery starts with a communication of positive value (so that the brain can believe it is in a safe place), followed by communication of caring, active engagement and inspiration.

Framing: people perceive their own reality through their own framing. If your frame of reference for pizza is high calories, excessive cheesy fat and too many carbohydrates, it doesn’t matter how delicious the pizza recipe Pizza Hut presents to you, you are going to be unreceptive. In the battle for attention and shared meaning, an influencer must set and claim the frame in advance of any message presentation. Communicators and innovators practice framing and reframing to improve their skills. For example, creative innovators always create the frame of solving a problem for others, requiring them to see the problem as others see it and experience it, and enabling the future communication of the solution as a relief of unease or removal of dissatisfaction or discomfort. Framing is based on empathy – seeing from others’ perspectives and aligning with their values. That’s why the Economics For Business value proposition design tool starts from “Who is the customer?” and “What is their need?”.

The tie-down: There needs to be a close. Our target audience’s brains are flooded with information from all directions at all times. We need to make our message stick. The tie-down is a tool to make sure the audience has the chance to understand what our information will mean to them, what value it can add to their lives, and how it will help them achieve their goals.

To ensure execution of the tie-down, Rene recommends that we all have an Influence Objective in mind: the specific action, thought or behavior we are aiming to influence. The tie-down is often a summary or emphasis of benefits, or a powerful takeaway or a “magic phrase”. It ties down our message in the audience’s brain.

The art of influence lies in storytelling.

Brain scans show that when we are caught up in a story told by a skilled storyteller, we stop daydreaming and become fully present. We become focused. We narrow our attention to what the storyteller is saying. There’s a response in positive brain chemistry, as well as empathy and trust — a neural coupling between the storyteller and the audience.

Stories help us organize data, discern value, and make better decisions. Influencers work hard at becoming good storytellers. Rene left us with a 10-step guide, which we provide as a free pdf.

Additional Resources

Amplify Your Influence: Transform How You Communicate and Lead by Rene Rodriguez: Mises.org/E4B_173_Book

“10 Steps to Amplify Your Influence” (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_173_PDF

172. Christian Sandström: Why Governments Can’t Act Entrepreneurially

/0 Comments/in /by

A strange strand of thought has emerged in European political economy circles that has been given the name of The Entrepreneurial State. The headline claim is that the state (i.e., nation state governments) can and should intervene in the economy to bring about innovation, and that, indeed, it is absolutely necessary for grand, mission-driven undertakings such as climate change amelioration and the commercial development of next-generation technologies. Economics For Business talked to Christian Sandström, co-editor with Karl Wennberg, of Questioning The Entrepreneurial State, a compendium of analysis by thirty-two leading economists (including friends of E4B such as Peter G. Klein, Samuele Murtinu, and Saras Sarasvathy) to demonstrate the fallacies of the case for an entrepreneurial state. There’s a lot of sound economics to be learned from Professor Sandström’s book.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

There’s a warm climate in Europe for government solutions to perceived economic problems. “The entrepreneurial state” is one of the forms these solutions take.

Entrepreneurship is well-developed in Europe, and recognized as a growth accelerator. Nevertheless, since 2008-9, country-level growth rates have been below expectations.

Professor Mariana Mazzucato originated the concept of “the entrepreneurial state”, telling fellow economists that they were all wrong in expecting growth to come from private entrepreneurship. Only government has the scope and scale to act entrepreneurially at the level of lifting the growth rate of the whole economy, overcoming the barriers to the introduction and commercialization of new technologies, and tackling the great missions such as climate change amelioration. Historically, she claims, this precedence has always applied: the state leads innovation and private entrepreneurs follow to fine tune the details of marketplace adoption and implementation.

The ongoing failure of Green Deals represents just one illustration of the errors of the entrepreneurial state.

One essay in Professor Sandström’s book spotlights what he calls Green Deals: directed investments in various technologies aiming at so-called sustainable development. Public funds distort incentives in the market, making it “rational” for firms to pursue technologies without long-term potential.

One of his examples is a municipality in northern Sweden that accumulated billions of Swedish Krona in debt investing in industrial plant aiming to create car fuel from cellulose, with the ambition of creating an environmentally friendly substitute for gasoline, which would also result in new jobs and a regional resurgence in competitiveness. The process of extracting ethanol from cellulose proved to be more difficult than promised, and no technological breakthroughs occurred. The 2008 recession resulted in falling prices for ethanol, yet more public money was poured in. The end result has been a high debt burden on the municipality, no new jobs, and no reindustrialization for the region.

As Professor Sandström and his co-author Carl Alm conclude, this case and other similar cases stand in stark contrast to ideas about an entrepreneurial state successfully taking on risk and pursuing new technological opportunities.

There are fundamental reasons why governments can’t act entrepreneurially.

First, governments don’t operate in markets and they are not subject to market tests, like going out of business if they fail to meet customer needs. They bear no genuine entrepreneurial risk. They have no competitors and so no process of competitive refinement and improvement. Their entrepreneurial actions can’t be evaluated. In effect, they want to achieve innovation without entrepreneurship, which is an impossibility.

Governments lack the required competence for the tasks they claim to be able to undertake.

Peter Klein, Samuele Murtinu and Nicolai Foss introduce and explain the economic concept of ownership competence. Entrepreneurs operating in competitive markets have strong incentives (i.e., their own property and their own funds) to allocate resources that they own or control to the most productive applications and to generating the value that the market prizes most highly. Knowing what to own, when to own it (or dispose of it), and how to create value through ownership, all under conditions of uncertainty, requires a skill set that bureaucrats and public actors don’t have and can’t exercise. Public employees can’t exercise the ultimate responsibility that comes with ownership.

Bureaucrats can’t reproduce the human factors of entrepreneurship.

Saras Sarasvathy introduced us to the entrepreneurial method of business innovation in episode #131 (Mises.org/E4B_131). Entrepreneurs self-select into the role of uncertainty-bearing, and then initiate projects and advance through a process of market co-creation, making commitments and then adjusting those commitments based on feedback loops and customer responses. They develop a lived experience that enables them to identify new goals to pursue and new means for pursuing them along the pathway. Creativity and adaptability are more relevant to success than investing acumen and planning.

Governments can’t operate in this way. They place big bets, with quantitative goals and illusions of predictability of outcomes, and they pay with other people’s money. They are not capable of finding the serendipity that guides the entrepreneur.

Governments don’t understand the innovative generativity of new technologies.

Professor Sandström’s book includes quite extensive examination of what is identified as the Digital Platform Economy (DPE) — the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem of platform access to markets, data, algorithms, and cloud computing capacity (There’s a useful report on the DPE provided in the book at the end of episode 131. Digital platforms are enablers for entrepreneurial creativity and business building as a consequence of the access that they give to new business tools and the interconnections to resources, both human and material. The platforms are provided by private companies, and the resulting value creation is user and customer co-generated.

Governments misunderstand the Digital Platform Economy. They see platform providers as monopolistic owners of excessive market power to be regulated and taxed, and totally miss the value generation of hyper-connectivity between buyers and sellers, the complementarity of firms on both sides of the platform, the open access and the lowered transaction costs.

These digital platforms will do much more to encourage entrepreneurial growth than any government ever could.

Governments’ errors are repeated because there is no genuine evaluation of their activities, initiatives, and “missions”.

Professor Sandström investigated the way that the results of government innovation expenditures and initiatives are assessed. He found that most evaluations are conducted by consultants, paid by the hour and mindful of the opportunity for future business if their work is well-received by the government that employs them. Some other assessments are conducted by the government departments themselves.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Professor Sandström could find only 5% of these assessments that were critical in any way (mostly simply to say that the desired results were not achieved).

Moreover, the assessments were economically incomplete. There was no identification or discussion of opportunity costs (what better uses could the funds have been put to) or of administrative costs, which are high since bureaucratic infrastructure grows with each new initiative.

The government’s best role is to remove itself as a barrier, and possibly to help remove additional barriers (for which it often bears responsibility in the first place).

Is there such a thing as innovation policy? Professor Sandström says no. He does point out that, in the Austrian tradition, removing barriers to entrepreneurship can help to create the type of environment in which innovation can flourish. This might involve the elimination of legislation and regulation that gets in the way. It could also include nurturing educational institutions to bring the right kinds of thinking and learned skills into the marketplace.

Any such initiative should be general and non-selective. Picking winners should be left to markets.

Additional Resources

Questioning the Entrepreneurial State: Status-quo, Pitfalls, and the Need for Credible Innovation Policy, edited by Karl Wennberg and Chris Sandström (PDF and ePub): View The Book

“The Digital Platform Economy Index” (PDF): View The PDF

Chris Sandström on Twitter: @ChrisSandstrom

An Entrepreneurial Society Woud Be A Great Improvement Over The Political One We Live In.

/0 Comments/in /by

Entrepreneurship is love. Entrepreneurs love their customers. It’s a genuine love; the complex combination of human values in the hearts and minds of customers mesh with the similarly complex combination of human values in the hearts and minds of entrepreneurs, and that’s what makes markets.

This is the scope of Austrian economics, and why it is different from economics in all its other forms. Austrian economics is a science of personal and interpersonal meaning, of how people think and feel, of subjective phenomena. Entrepreneurship is cultural. To thrive, entrepreneurs must be particularly well-embedded in and connected with the culture, to identify which customers seek their love and the forms in which they would most prefer to receive it. That’s one of the reasons why economist Ludwig von Mises declared that

Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man’s human existence.

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action Scholars Edition, Kindle location 17005

Central to Mises’ concept of civilization was the function of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial individual. They are the ones, he wrote, who

will make the life of coming generations more agreeable …they are the spokesmen of progress.

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action Scholars Edition, Kindle location 2216

Economist Jesus Huerta De Soto builds on these concepts and defines entrepreneurship as the

“set of co-ordinating abilities which spontaneously permit the emergence, preservation and development of civilization”.

Jesus Huerta De Soto, Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship, Ch 2 p215, Edward Elgar 2010

De Soto sees the influence of this entrepreneurial coordination function in the emergence of all social institutions, including law, money, and democracy. These are “an evolutionary product of the exercise of entrepreneurship itself” (Ibid). They arise from a vast number of people individually contributing throughout history their own small bit of practical information and entrepreneurial creativity. De Soto’s entrepreneurial society has identifiable characteristics.

  • It’s a process, defined by its dynamism, ever-changing.
  • It’s spontaneous, not designed by anyone, and not subject to legislation or top-down imposed rules.
  • Highly complex: billions of people with an infinite range of goals, tastes, values, and knowledge.
  • Composed of interaction – exchanges based on rules and standards (no violence, no fraud, etc)
  • All interactions are driven by the energy of entrepreneurship – creating, discovering, and transmitting information.
  • Consequently, the plans of individuals are adjusted and coordinated through competition – the most successful entrepreneurial plans become the most popular.
  • Individuals are thereby enabled to live in an increasingly rich and complex environment. Everything keeps getting better.

Any restriction on the free action of entrepreneurial creativity is unethical, in this view. Ethics emerge from the pursuit of creative entrepreneurship – by billions of people over hundreds of years – as moral guides that make human coordination and cooperation possible. Ethics are not to be imposed.

The political society we live in today drives us in the opposite direction. It seeks to divide: haves and have nots, winners and losers, red party versus blue party. It replaces the entrepreneurial ethic with redistribution, freezing “what exists today” and dividing it up irrespective of who created it. It wants to judge the social process irrespective of the individual behavior of those who participated in it. This is termed social justice. But in fact, it is an immoral violation of justice. It tramples on the property rights of those individuals who are producers, it prevents the free practice of entrepreneurship that makes the dynamic development of civilization possible, and it violates the entrepreneur’s right to the results of their own entrepreneurship.

In an entrepreneurial society, individuals will strive creatively and energetically to improve others’ lives. They’ll seek, discover and alleviate any situations of urgent need into which other human beings may have fallen, because entrepreneurship is love. The entrepreneurial society will be just, mutually empathetic, and beneficial for all. The best society promotes and rewards the entrepreneurial creativity of everyone in it.

171. Ben Ford on Situational Awareness and Managing for Constant Change

/0 Comments/in /by

How do businesses actually manage — rather than plan for — continuous change?

The increasing adoption of systems thinking in business tells us that the world is changing very fast, and companies need to change at least as fast as their environment in order to thrive. It’s comfortable to talk about but hard and uncomfortable to do. Most people prefer to continue to do what they’re used to rather than embrace change and constant experimentation.

There’s a lot to be learned from the military where special forces are trained to specialize in rapid reaction in chaotic or VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) worlds. They face an ever-changing environment (often described as kinetic). They have a very pure evolutionary process: what wins, survives. While the military organization is hierarchical, military operations are flat so that tactical decisions can be made by the people on the ground.

While we are anti-war, we can nevertheless recognize that the military has experience and expertise in managing and organizing for continuous change. We can learn from it.

There are significant barriers to overcome to implement rapid change management in business.

Certainly, the time scales are different. Companies change at an intergenerational pace, one generation of managers (or managerial techniques) learning from the last one. In hierarchical organizations, people reach managerial and executive positions by accumulating experience. By the time they get to their high position in the hierarchy, they have locked in an old mental model. They miss the signals of change and fall back on preconceived ideas and notions and methods.

In addition, there is considerable inertia to overcome — a resistance to change that acts as a blocker to agility. It’s human nature to resist change. Once a company has established a niche or a market share, it’s genuinely hard to abandon the strategy or the tooling or the products and services and the marketing that got them there.

To put it in military terms, change is a constant battle.

Situational awareness is a set of tools that are transferable from military to business to improve management of change.

Situational awareness governs how well your understanding of the world maps to reality. It operates along two perspectives and 3 time frames.

Internal situational awareness concerns the orientation of your firm, resources, capacity, the capabilities of your team, morale and so on. External situational awareness concerns markets, competitors, customers, trends, technologies, and all the environmental factors that are subject to change.

The three timeframes in military terminology are tactical, operational, and strategic.

The tactical timeframe concerns people on the ground in contact with the environment. In business, this can be the sales team or customer service or engineers in direct contact with customers. They’re doing implementation work but they are also the sensing mechanism. They may have daily or even hourly cycles for intention to change, making the change, learning from the consequences of the change and moving forward to the next change. They must be empowered, trained and equipped, and confident about their freedom of action and adaptation.

The strategic timeframe is the macroeconomic scale of what the firm is trying to achieve for the customer. This frame may be months or years, and dictates how to organize, how to invest, and where to allocate resources.

The operational timeframe is between the other two. How does the firm integrate short term implementational excellence with long term strategic engagement with a changing environment? How does the firm integrate all the hourly and daily information coming from the front line with the long-term investments and resource allocation projects? In a software business for example, there may be a trade-off between building new tooling, which takes time, and rapidly delivering products from established tooling.

How to apply situational awareness.

Actively use the 6-box framework (internal /external perspectives, tactical/ operational/ strategic timeframes.

To achieve better alignment of internal / external timeframes, look for mismatches across boundaries in the firm. Do the people working on the front line have the same understanding of the importance of the work as the managers and executives. Does getting thing done seem more difficult than it should be? Are the feedback loops fast? Is the information in the feedback loops spread throughout the firm, through multiple teams, divisions and silos? What’s the gap between perceived ideals and actual experience?

To implement across three time frames is an exercise in portfolio balancing and active discovery, with a high premium on sensing skills.

How much time and resource effort should a firm spend on refining its tooling (the operational timeframe) so that every produced end-product is exactly the same (the tactical timeframe) while keeping an eye out for environmental change, when a future competitor might introduce a faster cheaper product (the strategic timeframe)?

As Austrian economics always stresses, there’s no objective answer, just subjective learning from experience. For example, Netflix was part of the strategic timeframe that Blockbuster failed to manage. Blockbuster was operating its stores in a proven fashion (tactical) and adding new stores (operational), while rejecting the implications of the Netflix model. Today (May 2021), Netflix shows signs of missing some strategic signals. They made content their focus (tactical) and built original production capability (operational) but may be finding that customer tastes are changing and the appeal of their produced content is in decline (strategic).

Similarly, for the last few years, funding has been easy for startups (tactical) and so they have focused on long term market development (strategic) without hitting profit and cash flow milestones (operational). Now that funding is drying up, they are having to shore up their operational capabilities.

There are a couple of techniques that are helpful. One is Horizon Scanning: allocating some resources to identifying and picking out future external scenarios that represent potential change or strategic threats and building a response in advance. Another is red team thinking: mapping out future internal failure modes and then working backwards from them to identify the trip wires to look out for, and to nip emerging issues in the bud.

The after-action review (AAR) is an important element of situational awareness.

The AAR is applied not just in the military but in fast change business environments such as agile software development. It’s a tool to separate the quality of the decision you made from the outcome of the action that you took. We tend to get attached to our decisions, even if they were based on poor principles.

The components of an AAR include:

  • What was expected to happen?
  • What actually happened?
  • What went well and why?
  • What can be improved and how?

The discussion must be open and honest without hierarchy or blame. As far as possible, everyone on the team should participate so that all perspectives can be included. The focus is on results and identification of ways to sustain what was done well as well as the development of recommendations on ways to overcome obstacles. It’s really important to identify with high fidelity what happened because only then is there a good chance to identify new opportunities or trends with equal fidelity. In situations of uncertainty, it’s important to identify “what happened” accurately, in order to be able to identify what it means and what it implies for future actions.

AAR becomes part of disciplined execution.

The Economics For Business community is familiar with the explore/expand method of managing business complexity: explore many options through experimentation and expand (by allocating more resources) those that show good results. Annika Steiber in episode 170 called this capability “ambidexterity” — combining two logics of business in consistent and reliable execution on one hand and openness to change and exploration on the other.

Ben expands this thinking into the concept of disciplined execution. Once a process is proven and is producing reliable results, map it out carefully and then take individual steps or parts of the process and see if they can be further improved, e.g., by automation, without changing the outputs. Processes thus become more resource efficient in producing their output. Always be trying to improve what you already do well.

Similarly, once an “explore” project starts to become productive, apply the same continuous improvement standard. Map the process, examine parts that can be improved, and do so part by part so production is maintained and efficiency is increased.

All of this change dynamic should be driven from the bottom up.

Process improvements, fast responses to feedback loops, experimentation and rapid change are all insurgencies — the established hierarchy and mental models will often find them hard to embrace. Insurgency is a bottom-up dynamic. When transformation is pushed from the top down, it often happens that the territory changes before the consultants have drawn the new map. The hierarchy’s role is to provide strong alignment with the orientation of the firm and its culture and vision-mission, alongside loose control of front-line action.

Additional Resources

“Apply Situational Awareness To Manage Change” (PDF): Download PDF

Ben Ford’s website, where you’ll find his Mission Control services: MissionCtrl.dev

Ben Ford’s LinkedIn page, with a lot of presentations and recordings to learn from: Visit LinkedIn