Among techies, disruption is considered to be desirable, something to strive for. “Disrupt-[NAME]” conference are popping up across the world, “Disruption” is a must key word in vocabulary of every entrepreneur. This word has even propagated hallways of executive offices of Fortune 500 companies. Well, at least a lip service to it. Which is silly, as these companies’ whole business model is based on evolution along the McKensey’s H1/H2/H3 horizons, as described in my previous blog. By all means, there is a time and a place for disruption, as long as it manageable and directed. In this blog, however, I am going to discuss the undesirable effects of disruption occurring from the lack of leadership continuity and the damaging impact it has on set-in-place execution plans.
It was May of 1940. The very best divisions of French army and fully motorized British Expeditionary Force (BEF), full of confidence, were marching towards the north of Belgium to link up with the struggling Dutch in order to keep them in fight, all the while as a disaster was unfolding in the Ardennes. At that time, elated but white-knuckled Wehrmacht generals where pouring armor through the French border in a mad dash to the sea. It is tale-telling that Hitler was observed throwing tantrums, "nervous and irritable - terrified by success, fearful of collapse." (General Jodl diary). What was the reason for concern? The truth being is that the Battle of France was far from certain - Germans have gambled in a major way. The whole plan’s underbelly was a thin and very soft line of supply tracks going back and forth to move infantry, fuel, ammo and supplies. These supply lines were quite easy to cut by a concentrated French effort from North and South. When Dutch capitulated a few days later, the need of cutting off German supply lines became obvious to Maurice Gamelin, French Supreme Commander. And the order was given. Troops frenzied to starting positions, preparation in place, ready cut off German supply lines. Have that succeeded, if could have been the end of blitzkrieg in the West. However, unhappy with Gamelin massive failures and complacency, French government has appointed general Maxime Weygand as a Supreme Commander. It is important to state that Weygand was completely out of the loop, as he commanded French forces in Syria, of all places. When Weygand arrived on May 17th, his first order was to cancel the flank counter-offensive ordered by Gamelin. He then recalled his cancellation, restating Gamelin order to counter-attack, but it was 2 days later. It failed… During the 48 lost hours, the German infantry had caught up behind their tanks in the breakthrough and had consolidated their gains. Thus, France lost two crucial days before finally adopting the OBVIOUS solution.
I believe that war crystallizes human behavior, and there is a lesson to be learned here, applicable to business as well. It is a human nature during a change of leadership, for an outsider, to stamp out incumbent’s decision. After-all, who is going to sign up to execute someone else’s plan without a deep analysis and re-assessment? And herein lies a point. This re-assessment is very expensive to the teams executing current plans. In a large scale, complex IT operations, it typically takes 6-9 months for a new leader to gain knowledge of the situation and to formulate a coherent strategy. Most often than not, this strategy is a carbon copy of plans previously in place, albeit with a new spin and a lot more waste.
Don’t misunderstand me. I am not arguing against the change, new blood, fresh ideas and all that good jazz. Far from it! However, if current strategic vision is supported across all tiers of organization, before you decide to bring an outsider, really assess capabilities of the team you have in place. If current strategy makes sense, then an obvious course of action is to try to identify an internal leader or a single contributor with knowledge, passion, experience, drive and ambition, willing to step up to take on the opportunity. This, by far, is the best course of action. It empowers the team, strengthens org culture, presents path of growth, and reduces attrition of top talent. It is also costs less, and most importantly, ensures continuity of leadership, minimizes disruption to current plans and avoids delays to the deliverables. The last point is the most important – the cost of delay is the cost of opportunity – the only true cost that counts when it comes to IT projects.
Back to May 1940. If, instead of sacking Gamelin for Weygand, French government would have sacked Gamelin for a young, ambitious colonel known as "Colonel Motor(s)"who was there, near Arras, the battle of France could have turned out very, very different. That colonel in May led the only successful French counter-attacking action, capturing around 500 German soldiers, in June became full general, led resistance movement, and went on to become the most prominent French presidents in the XX century. His name was Charles de Gaulle.
Comments