Hold Tight to the Mission, Loosely to the Method

What are you more committed to—the outcome you’re trying to achieve, or the processes and procedures you’ve established to get there?

Strong leaders are often praised for their conviction, and rightly so. We need leaders who refuse to compromise their values or abandon the mission when things become difficult. But conviction can become a liability when we become just as committed to the processes and procedures we created to accomplish the mission.

Sometimes achieving the same outcome requires us to completely change how we pursue it.

The corporate landscape is littered with examples of companies that became more committed to the how than the what.

Blockbuster became too attached to stores instead of recognizing that customers wanted convenient access to entertainment.

Kodak remained heavily invested in film while the world moved toward digital images.

Railroads became identified with trains rather than the broader need to efficiently move people and goods.

Different industries. Different circumstances.

But there is a common leadership lesson.

They became too committed to the how and lost sight of the what.

Processes and methodologies that had once helped them succeed became increasingly ineffective as technology, customer expectations, and the environment around them changed.

But changing circumstances don’t have to produce failure.

They can also force organizations to adapt.

When the United States ended conscription and transitioned to the All-Volunteer Force in 1973, the Army still had a mission to accomplish.

What changed dramatically was the environment in which that mission had to be accomplished.

The Army could no longer depend on the draft to provide the people it needed. Attracting and retaining talented, committed soldiers became increasingly important.

Recruiting had to change.

Leadership approaches had to evolve.

Methods that might have worked when soldiers were conscripted weren’t necessarily going to work with people who had volunteered to serve and had choices about whether they would remain.

The Army had to adapt.

What didn’t change was the mission.

The responsibility to defend the country remained. But accomplishing that mission in a dramatically different environment required leaders to change both their mindsets and their methods.

And they did.

That’s an important distinction for every leader.

Adaptability isn’t about chasing every new idea that comes along. It isn’t about compromising our values or changing direction every time circumstances become difficult.

It’s about understanding what must remain constant and what must be allowed to change.

Technology changes.

People change.

Political realities change.

Social norms change.

Customer expectations change.

And the pace of those changes isn’t slowing down.

As leaders, we are going to be continually challenged to adapt.

The organizations and leaders who succeed won’t necessarily be those who correctly predict every change that’s coming. They will be those who recognize when the environment has changed and are willing to adjust their methods without losing sight of why they exist in the first place.

Jeff Bezos describes that balance well.

Be stubborn about the vision.

Be flexible about the details.

Where have I become more committed to a process or procedure than the outcome it was designed to achieve?

What has changed around me that might require a different approach?

What parts of my leadership must remain constant, and where do I need to become more flexible?

CHALLENGE
Identify one important outcome you’re responsible for achieving.
Separate the mission from the method.
Ask yourself:
If I were starting today, knowing what I know now and facing the environment as it exists today, would I still choose the same approach?
If the answer is no, don’t allow yesterday’s methodology to prevent tomorrow’s success.
Hold tightly to the mission. Hold loosely to the method.