Aptify's CEO Blog

For the last 3 weeks I've shared some of my thoughts related to Andy Grove's book, Only the Paranoid Survive,. In this final post in the series, I'd like to talk about the idea of continuously challenging your own opinion and changing course mid-stream if required.

The first thing I would say is that I do not think that Grove is suggesting that we easily change course based on any new data point that comes to attention. However, it is critical that alongside the other principles of gathering opinions at all levels of an organization, and demanding vigorous debate, that organizations do not let their decision history become "law" that requires a Supreme Court ruling to overturn. Instead, if new information comes to light that is vigorously debated and results in a desire to change the group's trajectory, the leadership culture shouldn't protect previous ideas even if it requires personal sacrifice.

For example, an executive who was closely aligned with Intel's memory business may have had personal attachment to the decision to exit from that line of business. Seeing beyond one's personal history in an organization is extremely challenging. It requires a culture that shows people that it will reward them for helping bring the right decision forward, even if it means it would put an end to something that was their core function.

Among other reasons, Grove was able to do this during his time at Intel by creating an environment that harvested opinions from all layers of the enterprise, funneled them into meaningful debate, and crafted a decision making process that embraced continual self-evaluation. 

Over the past 2 weeks I've written about topics from Andy Grove's classic business book, Only the Paranoid Survive,. This week I'll expand into the idea of decision making with imperfect or incomplete information.

Grove talks about the idea of driving forward with decisions that make sense based on the information that is there, rather than the information that isn't. Discovery of new information may change the fundamentals behind a decision. However, waiting for all of the information to be available can be the poorer choice if it means a stagnant culture, slow response to customer or market demands, or letting competitors get ahead of you.

The interesting thing to me is that this idea seems to tie in perfectly to the idea of organizations applying "Learn By Doing" which I wrote about here. This is particularly true when you combine the idea with what Grove describes as the need to continuously challenge your own opinion, which I'll write on next week. It is much easier to pull the trigger on a decision that has imperfect data supporting it, if the culture exists to change course if and when needed. On that note, it is critical to understand that you can't implement Grove's ideas piecemeal. If you implemented just this part without the other principles of continuously challenging opinions, seeking ideas from all levels, and demanding debate, you are setting yourself up for potential catastrophe. Under Grove, Intel was able to execute their decision making process using these concepts because they were also able to rapidly adapt if new information arose that caused them to challenge their prior opinion.

Next week: Challenging your opinion continuously and changing course mid-stream...

Last week, I started to discuss some of the leadership principles Andy Grove speaks to in his classic business book, Only the Paranoid Survive. Last week I wrote about the idea of seeking opinions from all levels of an organization. This week I'll continue by focusing on the theme of encouraging vigorous debate.

One of the most dangerous types of decisions is the one that is made when people around the table aren't saying what they really think. Andy Grove highlights this by talking about how Intel demanded vigorous debate throughout all decision making meetings. In comparison, I've seen many board or committee meetings that are consensus focused and create momentum around a decision before real debate occurs. People sometimes think they are debating an issue simply because someone decided to briefly and often meekly play "Devil's Advocate" and say a few things about what could go wrong. But, did you really vigorously question the underlying assumptions behind your ideas. Did you really demand everyone think through both sides of the equation? Grove says that we should demand vigorous debate at all costs. The related subject of getting people to share their opinions is a prerequisite to getting team members to truly debate a subject. It is important for leaders to show that they want to discuss an idea. When a "key person" in a room throws an idea on the table, it shouldn't end discussion around other ideas.

This is tough. In my own experience, the leaders of a group have to constantly reinforce that they expect the team to come up with competing ideas and be open about knocking things down that don't make sense, regardless of who put the idea out there to begin with. I am constantly looking for new ways to achieve the type of success that Grove talks about in this area. In my experience, the only way to make this type of thing happen is to ensure there is an environment that strongly encourages and rewards these activities.

Next week: Don't hold back decisions due to a lack of information

One of the individuals I look up to as a great example of leadership is Andy Grove. Grove emigrated to the US from Hungary in the 1950s and helped found Intel Corp. He later rose to the CEO position and was integral in Intel's growth. In his classic business book, Only the Paranoid Survive, he outlines a number of principles for leadership. The ideas I try to uphold in my own role include:

• Seeking opinions at all levels of an organization
• Encouraging (Demanding) vigorous debate at all costs
• Not holding back on decisions due to imperfect or lacking information
• Challenge your opinion continuously and not being afraid to change course mid-stream

In this blog post I’ll focus on the first idea - seeking out opinions at all levels of an organization and I'll be posting a weekly update on this series on the 3 other topics noted above. (Note: This first post in the series was also cross-posted on ASAE's great Acronym blog, which I was very pleased to contribute to as a guest author)

Seeking out and ultimately receiving unfiltered opinions from team members throughout (and beyond) your organization is a tough thing to do well. One of the requirements is to have a continuous focus on openness. Additionally, showcasing examples where input from all levels has been embraced and leveraged to the collective good of the group can help. If people believe their ideas will be ignored, or worse, put them in some form of jeopardy with superiors, your in-box will be pretty empty. Some people need anonymity to submit their thoughts, but many will speak openly if a culture supports dialog. Grove speaks to all of these issues as he outlines the concept in his book. One aspect of approachability at Intel was the fact that Grove and other senior managers had standard cubicles in an open office environment and made sure they were easy to approach. There are other ways to create this environment. For example, the founders of Hewlett-Packard were well known for the idea of “Management by Walking Around” where they frequently dropped in to informally chat with staff at every level of their growing enterprise.

Next week: Encouraging debate at all costs…