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.