Site icon Taylor Pearson

Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business by Chet Richards

How do you win at business? One can go into the philosophical questions of what does “winning” mean anyway or is that even the point?

But, let us take the question at face value: how does one company outcompete others to succeed in the marketplace?

I think the somewhat abstract nature of this framing is important. Most business books tend to start off much more tactically, at a lower level of abstraction: how to build an audience, how to build a million-dollar sales funnel, or how to hire someone.

These are useful and important skills to winning at business but without a proper strategic framework within which to function, they are, at best, less effective than they could be. At worst, they are counterproductive.

Chet Richard’s Certain to Win is a book that seeks to look at the broader strategic question. Instead of offering cliches or various tactics that sound great but lack a coherent framework for making them effective, it appropriately sees business as a complex system and helps to build a framework for operating effectively in it.

Chet Richards worked with John Boyd, most well known for his creation of the OODA Loop. In Certain to Win, Richards takes the lessons Boyd applied to modern warfare and seeks to apply them to business. It is a frame of reference which is still broadly underappreciated.

There are three core principles that I believe every business would benefit from understanding and implementing.

  1. Effective Orientation via “Fast Transients” and “Snowmobiling”.
  2. The pre-eminence of Vision and Culture.
  3. The Farthest Down the Chain Principle.

Effective Orientation via “Fast Transients”

The essence of agility and of applying Boyd’s ideas to any form of competition is to keep one’s orientation well matched to the real world during times of ambiguity, confusion, and rapid change when the natural tendency is to become disoriented.

The ability to rapidly shift the focus of one’s efforts is a key element in how a smaller force defeats a larger: see the emergence of guerilla warfare and the ability of trivially small startups to outcompete vastly more powerful competitors. It enables the smaller force to create and exploit opportunities before the larger force can.

While this point is often bandied about, it is still broadly underappreciated. To appreciate how important speed is, go find the best chess player you can and offer to play for $1,000 under the following conditions:

Unless you are playing somebody at the grandmaster level, you can play pretty horribly and still win.

When we talk about “getting inside your opponent’s OODA loop”, this is a helpful analogy for thinking about it. One of the key reasons for the success of Japanese Carmakers over Detroit in the 1970s and 1980s was that Honda and Toyota could bring out a new model in roughly 2 years, with superb quality, while it took Detroit at least a year longer.

There are a couple of key elements here that people often get wrong. One is that effective orientation, getting inside the competition’s OODA loop, is not about blindly moving fast, but about “the ability to rapidly shift the focus of one’s efforts”.

Boyd referred to this as a fast transient. A fast transient is not a traditional maneuver done more quickly. “Move fast” is usually interpreted as “let’s do more of what we are already doing just work harder and do it faster”. This is the precisely wrong interpretation.

The “transient” is the change between maneuvers. The ideal fast transient is an abrupt, unexpected, jerky, disorienting change that causes at least a hesitation and preferably plants the seeds of panic in the other side.

It’s a “What-the f___k!” change in circumstances, and in the interval when the opponent is trying to comprehend what the f___k is, Boyd would strike. In the context of aircraft dogfighting where Boyd first developed his theories, this focused on the American fighter setting up novel and unexpected conditions and exploiting them before the Russian could react.

In a business context, it is perhaps best embodied in the story of Intel. In the 1970s and 1980s. Intel developed the first-ever low-cost memory chip in the 1970s and for the decade that followed Intel dominated the memory business. However, Japanese firms quickly started catching up making memory chips cheaper and better every year

Under the leadership of Andy Grove, Intel decided that the only way to survive was to rapidly grow their microprocessor business. If they tried to grow it slowly, they knew the memory business would drag them down.

Under the new plan, Intel used their assets from the memory business to successfully expand their microprocessor business and came to dominate the microprocessor market. Andy Grove was named Time magazine’s Man of the Year in 1997 for the turn around.

Without going into a full history of the microprocessor business, it’s almost impossible to state how big a shift this was. The first step in transition was that Grove laid off more than 7,000 employees, nearly a third of the entire company.

Intel survived and thrived not because everyone was working extra hard or long hours (though I’m sure they were), but because Grove and the Intel team successfully re-oriented to the new environment.

Since what you’re looking for is mismatches between your current understanding and the environment, a general rule is that bad news is the only kind that will do you any good.

To thrive in any form of maneuver conflict, you must seek out and find data that don’t fit with your current worldview and you must do this while there is still time as Grove did. Otherwise, the world will change—or more likely your adversaries or competitors will change it for you—and you will find yourself disoriented and in the position of playing catch-up. You will have lost the initiative, which is dangerous in any conflict.

This requires optimizing for interesting. Business consultant Tom Peters suggested that you can spot who is going to do great things by what they do on airplanes. They don’t pull out the laptop and grind spreadsheets. Instead, they read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance or pick up insights on human behavior from the great novelists.

You never know what will prod your creativity, and the more widely your prospect, the more likely you are to find that something to set your offerings apart from all of your competitors.

Toyota claims that the idea for their amazing production system came from engineers who visited supermarkets in the United States after the war. Studies of innovation reveal that practically everything new consists of bits and pieces of other concepts, often from fields that appeared to be unrelated, that somebody had the genius to reassemble to form something new and exciting.

Boyd called this snowmobiling. Imagine three separate scenes: a motorboat towing a skier behind it, a tank rolling across the desert, and a bicycle cruising down the street.

If you break them down into the constituent parts, you have: a motorboat with a hull, outboard motor, and a set of skis being towed behind it; a tank with treads, a gun, and armor; and a bicycle with wheels, handlebars, and gears.

You can use these constituent parts to make many different incoherent wholes, but a coherent and useful whole would be a snowmobile: you take the treads from the tank, an outboard motor and skis from the boat, and handlebars from the bike and combine them to make a snowmobile.

Snowmobiling is an effective orientation. Intel succeeded because Andy Grove and the Intel team looked at the marketplace and Intel’s own internal competencies and capabilities and built a snowmobile in the form of a new microprocessor business.

Snowmobiling requires taking all the data you’ve gathered in the observation phase, breaking it down deductively into its constituent parts and then recombining those parts through creative synthesis to form a new model of reality that lets you make better decisions and actions. It is the essence of strategy.

Unexpected victories (or losses) are the best source of strategy. In Boydian terms: unexpected victories are the best source of fast transient opportunities that allow you to win.

Boyd believes that a winner is someone (individual or group) that can build snowmobiles, and employ them in an appropriate fashion when facing uncertainty and unpredictable change.


The Pre-eminence of Focus and Culture

Another key element of Boyd’s thinking (that was also prevalent with Sun Tzu) is a focus on the moral and emotional components of competitions over the merely military.

In Sun Tzu’s words: “Do not even consider risking a decision by cold steel until you have defeated the enemy’s will to fight”.

When discussing the notion of grand strategy, Boyd concluded that: “What is needed is a vision rooted in human nature so noble, so attractive that it not only attracts the uncommitted and magnifies the spirit and strength of its adherents, but also undermines the dedication and determination of any competitors or adversaries. Moreover, such a unifying notion should be so compelling that it acts as a catalyst or beacon around which to evolve those qualities that permit a collective entity or organic whole to improve its stature in the scheme of things.”

Herb Kelleher, former CEO of Southwest Airlines frequently said that competitors could copy the details of his system—the main differentiators being direct (as opposed to hub-and-spoke) routings, no reserved seats or meals, and using only a single type of aircraft to reduce maintenance costs —but they couldn’t copy the culture, the vibrant esprit de corps, because “they can’t buy that”.

By all accounts, he was right. There have been roughly 14 gazillion Southwest case study books and articles published yet very few companies have actually implemented it in an effective way.

That’s because establishing a vision, a culture which is “so noble, so attractive that it not only attracts the uncommitted and magnifies the spirit and strength of its adherents, but also undermines the dedication and determination of any competitors or adversaries” requires making very hard tradeoffs.

It’s a lot easier to emulate the trappings of successful companies than to actually emulate the company: see every office of a failing company with foosball and bean bag chairs.

Recall that Andy Grove’s first step after determining a new direction for Intel was laying off more than 7,000 employees. The courage to do that is hard to come by and it was ultimately necessary to save the jobs of everyone else.

It is ideal if a company’s highest-level focus serves the purposes of grand strategy: attract the uncommitted to our side while pumping up our morale and deflating that of the competition.

I personally quite like the payment processing company Stripe for this reason. What could be more boring than payment processing? Yet Stripe’s mission is to “increase the GDP of the internet”, which is grand and inspiring, akin to the Star Wars hero’s journey of “bringing balance to the Force”. Stripe is Yoda, helping your company (Luke) on the grand quest to sell products or services and increase the GDP of the internet. That’s a vision that inspires many to work for them and brings customers to them.

However, much more to the point focusing or vision statements are effective. Honda’s slogan during the Honda-Yamaha War was “Yamaha wo tsubusu!” which roughly translates to “We will crush, squash, butcher, and slaughter Yamaha!”

Boyd called this idea Schwerpunkt. It literally translates as the center of gravity or emphasis but is best understood as focus or the main priority.

In military terms, it is usually the geographic point of attack.

Having a clear focus, and emphasizing that over any particular tactic, empowers your subordinates to make decisions for themselves in an uncertain environment.

A good schwerpunkt helps you and your team make better decisions in an uncertain environment where rigid procedures close you off and isolate you.

Instead of giving others plans, you give them a schwerpunkt, what I like to call a focusing statement and let them figure out how to get there.

This both gives them a greater sense of ownership and empowers them to be flexible with trying different approaches.

One of the most common mistakes that people make as it relates to culture is that they pick “values” or a “vision statement” which is effectively meaningless.

It’s not necessary to explicitly state that you value things like integrity, honesty, respect, creativity, communication, or other very obviously positive values. You should hire people that are already ethical, intelligent, and hard-working. That is table stakes. (Not-so-fun fact: One of Enron’s core values was integrity so you know that one works really well.)

An effective vision or effective principles must necessarily be in some way exclusionary. A culture is determined precisely by what it will not tolerate. That reveals the tradeoffs it is trying to make.

Facebook’s focusing statement for a long time was to “move fast and break things” and they had various things in place (such as having every engineer push something live on their very first day at work) to reinforce that.

Move fast and break things is not an obviously good principle for every business like integrity or creativity. If you run a nuclear power plant, “move fast and break things” would be a completely idiotic focusing principle.

That’s what makes it effective! It necessarily excludes seemingly reasonable ideas.

Every day, your team members encounter situations that no one has ever encountered before. A good focusing statement helps them to make decisions there that reinforce the company culture.

The focusing statement of the Toyota Production System was “shorten the time it takes to convert customer orders into vehicle deliveries”. This is one of the best vision/focusing statements in the history of business.

This allows fast transients to be much more effective. It tells everybody who works for Toyota that whenever they are in doubt about what to do or something unexpected happens, make the fast transient that will most reduce customer-to-delivery span time.

When done well and actually used, a focusing statement gradually becomes company culture.


The Farthest Down the Chain Principle

The final key element is what I call the Farthest Down the Chain Principle. In order to maximize the effectiveness of fast transients and the focusing statement, you have to devolve maximum responsibility onto the subordinate, in return for his or her pledge to use his/her initiative and creativity to accomplish the task, consistent with your ground rules.

You want the people making the decisions to have an intuitive knowledge, what Boyd called fignerspitzengefuhl, of the customer and the competitive environment.

Fingerspitzengefühl is a German word that translates literally to “fingertips feeling”, but it’s probably easier to understand as “intuitive feel” or “having one’s finger on the pulse”.

In Medieval Japan, samurai practiced with their swords until the weapon became “an extension of their arm”. Once the fight began, if you stopped to think, you were dead. You had to be able to feel how the fight was going.

The Greeks called it mētis. Odysseus, the protagonist of Homer’s Odyssey, was praised for his mētis. Odysseus not only knew how to deceive Circe, the Cyclops, and Polyphemus but also knew when to drive his men harder and when to pull back. This is fingerspitzengefuhl.

You want to push the decision making as far down the chain of command as you can go because it’s the people on the “frontlines” that have the best intuitive feel.

In order to do this, you must create mutual trust among the members of your team. When you are working with people you trust, you can each move through your OODA loop cycles much more quickly. When I ask someone who I trust implicitly, because we have a shared focus and they have a multi-year track record of getting things done, to execute on something, I don’t have to micro-manage them. I know they will get things done.

I do not need to check in with them on their new orientation because I can trust them to do it on their own.

Creating mutual trust takes time; it’s not something that can be done in a weekend retreat, only over a period of years of working together but I believe it’s worth it.

For managers, the most important insight from Einheit is that you can’t micromanage. You have to let people take ownership even if they are going to make mistakes. In the long run, the mutual trust is more important than the small mistakes.

When you have these three ingredients, it is very easy to re-orient quickly and outcompete. The highest leverage task in the world of business is creating a company culture that accelerates effective fast transients through the establishment of a clear focusing principle (schwerpunkt), mutual trust (einheit), and intuitive knowledge (fingerspitzengefuhl).

This requires embracing constant change even as most people resist it. As Gen George S. Patton said “I don’t want to get any messages saying, ‘I am holding my position’. We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s ass.”

My Full Highlights

Exit mobile version