Is fast the new right?
Small is the new big. Seth Godin taught us that. I have a hypothesis: Fast is the new right.
I've been thinking through this theory for the past couple of months. It all started with this passage from Scott Briscoe's interview with Jim Collins in the November 2006 issue of Associations Now. It struck a nerve with me the moment I read it. It continually bugged me. Stuck with me. And it wouldn't let go:
Briscoe: What is your take on the importance of speed in decision making?Collins: In the Good to Great research, it is very clear that undisciplined, fast decisions correlate with mediocrity. The critical question is not how fast or slow you make big decisions but whether or not you are right. If you can reach a point where you decide quickly, that's great, but making a big decision fast and getting it wrong is dangerous.
If you look over economic history, the history of business exchange, and you look at great versus good, rarely are big decisions taken fast. Mediocre companies tend to make big decisions fast...
But here's the rub: We operate in a completely different environment than we did when Good to Great was printed (2001), a decade has passed since the beginning of the Good to Great study (began in 1996), and the data that was compiled for Good to Great is in some cases far older than that. It is a study of the past.
History doesn't change, but our playing field certainly has since the compilation of the Good to Great data.
I would submit to you that fast is, in fact, quickly becoming the new right. In the past, being fast was not a necessary success factor. Today, it is becoming far more important. Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat, would certainly agree (see Flattener #10, The Steroids). In this era, I assert that the failure to make decisions in a timely manner is just as bad as (and possibly worse than) the failure to make the quote-unquote right decisions.
Of course, there is ample evidence to refute this theory. Take for example the iconic iPod. The iPod was not the first digital audio player (DAP) on the market. In fact, it was a relative late-comer, arriving some six years after the first DAPs. But today, about two-thirds of all DAPs sold in the U.S. are iPods.
Nevertheless, take your history with a grain of salt. It has a way of lulling us to sleep. Sometimes it makes us believe that "past results are necessarily indicative of future results."
As Einstein said, "The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
| | Permalink |
Comments
Ben, how about this as a mindbender:
Wrong is the new right.
If you're correct, and the reality of paradigm shift demands faster decisions based on less information, the likelihood of getting those decisions at least partially wrong increases dramatically. The trade-off is that we act more quickly to spark, seize or sustain momentum and open a pathway for genuine creativity and learning. Can we accept this approach in our organizations? Can getting it wrong become a routine thing, even a cause for celebration? Will getting it right ever become less important simply because we don't learn anything new?
Posted by: Jeff De Cagna | January 10, 2007 10:47 PM
I'm going to go ahead and LOL at the idea of associations making fast (or even too fast of) decisions. In fact, NO! I'm going to ROFL!
Posted by: Fred Simmons | January 10, 2007 11:46 PM
Decisions? You people make decisions? Sounds like you are asking permission! Yipes.
I think it is really more like a tribal ritual. Each chief speaks in turn, chanting phrases that become ingrained in the culture. As the chant circles, and all nod, the group reinforces its shared mythology. That's when a chief inserts a new truth, followed by a long held concept, and as the chant continues, you run from the room and do what you please. As new chiefs enter the circle, the new idea is passed down to another generation of staff and volunteers. I have added mystic paintings in the cave to prove the longstanding agreement around core beliefs.
Sorry. It's early. Here's the bottom-line.
If you gain agreement around the ends and delegate down the means, fostering a culture of experimentation and fast prototyping--adopting Jim Collins' metrics to fend off naysayers--you move forward.
Posted by: Ann Oliveri | January 11, 2007 7:03 AM
Ben - I'm glad you wrote this, that quote in AN really pulled me up short as well, and I was expecting to drink at some sort of fount of wisdom. I kind of rationalized what he's saying by doing some creative reading, but it still wasn't working for me.
I agree with all the commenters here as well. Esp. Fred. You are spot on when you say that it's a study of the past.
Of course you have to be careful and deliberate, I don't think that being quick is antithetical to doing so. One thing I'm thinking of is 37Signals' "most decisions don't matter." It's true! So, if you have made a point of pride of being "careful" such that you don't realize when you're spending time on meaningful vs. nonmeaningful decisions, you're screwed. Rhetoric like Collins' here fosters defaulting to the "I spent lots of time so it must be good" philosophy. Big mistake for our times. IM ever so humble O.
Posted by: Nick | January 11, 2007 8:41 AM
I agree that fast is more important than it used to be, and that Collins misses that point in his quote (and that associations, in general miss that point even more). But personally I think Collins' real point is less about speed and more about being disciplined. I wrote about this on the Association Renewal blog (I think if you click my name it will take you there). Fast is good, but not necessarily the new "right." You need to be fast and disciplined.
Posted by: Jamie Notter | January 11, 2007 9:27 AM
All too often, when we refer to making fast decisions, we mean making speedy decisions to start something, but then cognitive dissonance, the desire not to admit a mistake, the fear of losing what's been invested so far, etc., mean that we're incapable of making a quick decision to get out. One sees a lot of that in new product development and in business reorganizations.
I think it's organizations that don't know their core identity that are most likely to get into trouble with fast decision making. They're the ones that are most likely to experiment with things that should be constants and refuse to vary what should be variables.
Posted by: Ann Feeney | January 11, 2007 10:08 AM
Terrific post and great comments so far... I think it's a balance and calling anything the new 'anything' is always a generalization. That said, things are changing so rapidly, if you don't foster a culture of innovation, I suppose that you'll shortly be dead or worse - irrelevant.
Posted by: Marc Sirkin | January 11, 2007 10:39 AM
One option, barring change at the top, is to rapidly try several options for fulfilling a slowly decided issue. That way you quickly identify the best course(s) among several options, learning as you go. At worst, you rapidly prove it was a poor decision and needs to be changed. Hopefully a bit more quickly this time.
Posted by: David Gammel | January 12, 2007 9:14 AM