Innovation in the Rainforest?

I was recently invited to speak at a 3 day workshop on innovation entitled ‘Rainforest Architects,’ sponsored by Greg Horowitt and Victor Hwang, partners and co-founders of T2 Venture Capital, and co-authors of the book The Rainforest – the Secret to Building the Next Silicon Valley.  The conference sought to build on the themes of the book, which examines the metaphorical contrast between the well-manicured order of the plantation, and the chaos of the Rainforest.  The plantation represents our disciplined, ordered, and (relatively) well organized economy.  Break-through innovations have been the equivalents of weeds that have somehow been able to flourish– weeds that traditional businesses and organized economies normally reject. “While plants grow most efficiently on farms, weeds sprout best in Rainforests.”

The workshop was held in Silicon Valley, since Silicon Valley is the Rainforest they describe, having become a hot bed of innovation and creative ideas that in most cases, were rejected by the ‘plantation owners’ in the US economy of  15, 20, 25  years ago. Many of those plantation-like businesses are now defunct, but the best and strongest weeds, the Googles, the Facebooks, and others have transformed their industries, and arguably our world.  The plantation model still works for efficient implementation and ‘harvesting’ of proven ideas, but the chaos of the Rainforest is where the new ideas, the ‘weeds,’  grow and flourish, and where the best and strongest can prove themselves.

Given that the Rainforest is chaotic and disorganized, I was asked to bring in the perspective of another culture – the Navy SEALs – which has thrived and succeeded in the chaos of the battlefield.  Since SEALs often speak of themselves as ‘masters of chaos,’ and have thrived as a weed within the well-ordered plantation of the Navy,  Greg  wanted the business entrepreneurs  attending this workshop – his Rainforest Architects –to hear from a representative of this successful military ‘start-up’ which has gotten so much attention lately.  And through a couple of mutual friends, he was connected to me.

I was asked to speak on ‘comfort in chaos,’ and I did – generally noting that we should never be ‘comfortable’ in chaos – instead, we should seek to be as well prepared as possible, and when in chaos, stay very, very alert and tuned in, and look hard to find the patterns. SEALs and other SOF train hard to master the chaos of the battlefield by being better prepared and better trained than anyone else in the gunfight, and they mitigate risk by planning and preparing for things to go wrong. We talked about managing luck, good and bad, and becoming more resilient by purposely spending a lot of time outside of our comfort zone, but trying to stay within our safety zone.  After examining my experience and preparing the themes I wanted to address, I found many of the same ideas better expressed– but without the SEAL or military connection – in two books:  Great by Choice, by Jim Collins, and The Icarus Deception by Seth Godin.    I think I led a good discussion with the Rainforest Architects, but we didn’t get specifically to ‘innovation’ as I had hoped. The topic of positive innovation, and creative thought, individually, organizationally, and socially continues to fascinate me.

The reading I did on ‘innovation’ struck me a lot like the reading I have done on leadership: it is a very broad topic, a bit mushy (which I like), there are a number of different models that have succeeded, and innovation and leadership both must adapt to culture and context to succeed.   I found many formulae for enhancing one’s own innovative spirit and personal creativity, formulae for leaders and organizations to foster innovation within their companies/teams, and how innovative teams, often called ‘skunk works’ (check out the etymology)  can organize themselves to best nurture that great idea that will transform their organization, society, or the world.  I also found interesting material about when NOT to innovate, and when to hunker down with the tried and true.   But what I found most insightful were the ideas in Greg and Victor’s Rainforest book and workshop, emphasizing  the need for a supportive ‘economic ecosystem’ to ensure that  great and innovative ideas don’t die on the vine (as many do), but get traction, gain momentum, and have a positive and enduring impact.

The Rainforest Architect approach emphasizes the social and personal relationship piece of the innovation process, and less the scientist working alone in a lab who (for example,) may develop a cure for diabetes.  Greg and Victor make the point that money is not the primary driver for most successful innovators, nor for their supporters , a point also made by Simon Sinek in Start with Why, and Daniel Pink in Drive, among others.  Money and capital are certainly an important part of the process, but their point is that passion and zeal for the idea and the impact it can have, are the primary drivers in most great innovations – not the drive to get rich.  Start with a great, or even pretty good, idea, add passion and zeal on the part not only of the creative, but also the support team, throw in strong business skills, trust between the players, and an economic ecosystem that supports innovation, and the money will naturally follow.

In short, Greg and Victor’s Rainforest message is that ‘it takes a village’ to foster and sustain innovation, and that ‘village’ can be social, entrepreneurial, business, and scientific networks spanning the globe.  That village needs to promote collaboration and trust, and create a space for ideas to come together, and in the words of Matt Ridley, ‘have sex.’  It is a complicated process, and the roles of biology, human relationships and a support community have been undervalued in understanding the innovation process.  A few short quotes from The Rainforest – the Secret to Building the Next Silicon Valley give you a sense for the key messages I took from the book:

-          To understand Silicon Valley, we must think of its people as a living biological system, not the sum of its individual components. P271

-          Successful innovation requires the labors of a vast ecosystem of executives, engineers, salespeople, advisors, consultants, venture capitalists, angel investors, accountants, landlords, lawyers, marketers, bankers, supportive friends, and countless others. Page 82

-          The secret recipe of Rainforests…is about people and how they interact with one another. P64

-          Rainforests have replaced tribalism with a culture of informal rules that allow strangers to work together efficiently on temporary projects. P116

-          The informal rules that govern Rainforests cause people to restrain their short-term self-interest for long-term mutual gain. P121

-          Rainforests like Silicon Valley have developed ways to foster communication, trust, and collaboration among very different kinds of people.  P111

-          Leaders in the Rainforest must learn to engineer serendipity, not outcomes. P275

In preparing for my participation in the workshop, I got a feel for the extensive literature and breadth of thinking on innovation, not only individual creativity, but also how organizations and social and economic ecosystem can foster it.  Exploring the process that leads to breakthroughs that propel our individual, organizational and socio-economic lives forward is a fascinating new world for me.  Clearly, we need analytical, systematic, and plantation-owner thinking in most aspects of our lives, and most of us spend our lives living and working in the well-organized and comfortable world of our (metaphorical) plantations.  But the world of the entrepreneur, the venture capitalist, the start-up, and the innovator is different.   As Greg Horowitt and Victor Hwang write, there are great insights to be gained by purposely (and courageously) walking out into the Rainforest, and seeking to learn from the chaos and innovation in nature, and considering what those processes might teach us as we try to foster an economic ecosystem that gives new and innovative ideas a chance to prove themselves.

Note and Postscript:  The values that the book espouses are of particular interest to me as someone who (still) teaches business ethics.  They are generally consistent with a new movement by successful entrepreneurs and thought leaders like Bill Gates (‘Creative Capitalism,) Michael Porter (‘Shared-Value Capitalism,’) John Mackey (‘Conscious Capitalism,’) and others.   You can read, comment on, and/or endorse the Rainforest Social Contract at http://therainforestbook.com 

Quiet Professionals Part 2 “No Easy Day”

This is part 2 because I have already written on this topic for Naval Special Warfare’s Ethos magazine, and posted it in this blog in January of this year – just scroll down.   I think it was a pretty good essay, but it didn’t get much attention when I wrote it – but it was certainly timely.   I’ve been thinking about ‘Mark Owen’s’ recently published book about his experiences during the preparations and conduct of the mission which killed Osama bin Laden, and thought I would add my two cents into what has now become a national discussion – not that my input will be included in that discussion, but I continue to be asked my thoughts on it, and so I share them here.

I’ll begin by referring to my first essay, “Quiet Professionals in Naval Special Warfare” (Part 1).  I wrote then, and continue to believe that we need SEALs to share their experiences – but not just SEALs;  ship-drivers, aviators, submariners, Marines, Airmen, Soldiers, politicians, diplomats, businessmen.    We learn by hearing, reading, and discussing the stories of others.  Those who have participated in and learned from important events, and then who share their perspectives with us, do us all a great service.   Without these first person accounts of eye-witnesses to history, our civilization would be much poorer.

The contentious issue for me in the case of ‘Mark Owen,’ is how it was done, when, and to what purpose.  In Part 1, I offered three criteria by which I suggested we judge whether former SEALs sharing their perspectives and story in public deserves our praise or our condemnation.  Let’s consider these in judging No Easy Day:

1. Is it fair and honest, and does it constructively contribute to the public understanding of NSW? Or does it primarily promote self-interest or a personal agenda?
2. Is the warrior exhibiting ‘a strong dose of humility,’ to include respect toward those with whom he might disagree?
3. Does the perspective or story serve the interests of those still in the arena, or does it make their lives and work more difficult, more complicated, or even more dangerous?

I have not yet read No Easy Day, but I’ve read reviews by people who have.  It appears that the book may arguably meet criterion one regarding the factual content – perhaps not regarding the personal agenda.  I am led to understand that it meets part of criterion two, in that it appears that ‘Mark Owen’ is a straightforward guy telling his story as he experienced it, and it appears that he is not grandstanding to exaggerate his role.  And from the reviews I’ve read, it doesn’t appear that he has any axes to grind, though he apparently is not a fan of President Obama. And several who have read it say that it does not appear to reveal tactics, techniques or procedures not already well known in the public sector.

However, publishing this book clearly does not meet criterion three.  I believe that getting his story out into the press at this time, will significantly hurt the guys still in the fight.

The timing could hardly be worse.   While some will disagree with me, I believe this story needs to be told, and I expect and hope that we’ll eventually see additional books by participants in this classic and history-changing raid.  But now is not the time.  Not yet.  It is too soon.  Not during the heat of a presidential election, not right in the wake of Act of Valor, at a time when you can hardly turn on the television or read the newspaper without finding former SEALs pontificating on matters of politics, strategy, or national security.  Former SEALs have recently not been ‘quiet’ professionals, and it seems that many are drawing attention to themselves, for purposes that are not consistent with the Professional Military, or the SEAL, Ethos.  The fact that  ‘Owen’ and his advisors chose to rush to press and ignore established protocols designed to give proper attention to matters of national security, suggest that he was in a big hurry – perhaps to beat his team mates into the market.  Had he waited until a more appropriate time, the political issues would have diminished, and we still would have gotten his story.

My sense – and fear – is that the timing and manner of the release of this book will do damage to the credibility and reputation of the Navy SEALs that may take a long time to mend.  Senior political and military leaders may think twice about having SEALs included in sensitive missions, wondering how soon they will see a recently separated Navy SEAL, seeking celebrity status,  discussing it on Good Morning America, or Imus, or 60 minutes.    You can almost hear senior leaders thinking: “Which one of these guys will go to the press, or write a book?  We’re not sure we can trust the SEALs.”

I recall General Wayne Downing telling me when he was Commander of US Special Operations Command, “You have no idea how much damage Dick Marcinko has done to the reputation of your community.”  I thought we had finally weathered that storm, and restored our reputation as ‘military professionals,’ but a friend of mine, who is very senior in the military establishment, recently told me regarding the impact of this book, essentially that we have no idea how much damage No Easy Day has done to the SEAL community’s reputation within the Department of Defense.

What also makes the untimely release of this book particularly painful, is that it appears ‘Mark Owen’ violated the trust of his team mates, caused damage to the reputation of the Naval Special Warfare community in which he’d honorably served, and made himself a pariah….for money.   It appears that in order to be first-to-market with the first-person account of the raid, and to garner the fame, notoriety, and the biggest pay check, ‘Mark Owen’ readily violated the ethos of his SEAL tribe, and the military ethos that places ship and shipmate before self.

‘Owen’ says he just wanted to tell his story and the story needed to be told. And others (among whom, the President, Vice President, the SECDEF, and others) may have already revealed what previously would not have been revealed, and perhaps for self-serving purposes. But they were not part of the Tribe – they were not sworn to be ‘quiet professionals,’ sworn to live up to an ethos of service before self, of honor, courage, and commitment, where service to the nation, team, and team mates always trumps opportunities for personal glory or gain. It appears that he has gone his own way, doing damage to his brothers who are still in the fight, for a healthy paycheck. We in the military, we in the Special Operations community, we in the SEALs, claim to be better than that. And because ‘Owen’ was a SEAL, the values and honor of the entire SEAL community are now called into question.

Am I going to read the book? Yes. It is now part of the national discussion, and unfortunately, just like Dick Marcinko’s Rogue Warrior a generation ago, it is now part of the identity, culture, and heritage of the Navy SEALs. Hopefully, those still in the fight can make adjustments to reduce the chances that this will happen again, and hopefully, senior military and political leaders will come to forgive us this one. I’m told that the SEAL community has an unpublished list of former SEALs who are persona non grata, and now ‘Owen’ is at the top. Though they may be toasted at celebrity cocktail parties, people on this list are no longer welcomed at Naval Special Warfare functions. Their names are no longer spoken with reverence and respect by those in the SEAL community. Their professional reputations are forever damaged. And though they may be laughing all the way to the bank, in the end, I continue to believe that the most important thing we have, is our honor and reputation within our community. You can’t buy those with a big bank account.

————–

After writing the above, I did view the 60 minutes interview with ‘Mark Owen’ and as I expected, I found him likable, credible and he told his story in what seemed to be an honest and straightforward manner.  He said he has the support of his former team mates in getting the true, inside story of the raid into the public arena, countering some of the various inaccurate versions that are out there.  Perhaps some of his team mates may support him, but certainly not the senior ones.  My experience in the Naval Special Warfare community is that many of the operators have little appreciation for the political nature of their work, and how credibility at senior levels is what provides resources, funding, and gives important missions to units.  As I stated above, no matter how credible and straightforward Mark Owen may appear on 60 minutes, bringing this story out now, in this manner, violates the rules of the tribe, and hurts the credibility of SEALs in the arena where key decisions are made.

The Fighter, the Family, the Fleet – a Fragile “Ménage a Trois”

The below is an essay recently published in the Naval Special Warfare Magazine Ethos, available on-line.  They had asked me to write something about ‘The Family’ and this is what I came up with.   I heard Radm Dixon Smith, Commander Naval Region Southwest, use the “Fighter, Family, Fleet” alliteration in a speech, and he tells me it is being used in broader contexts in the Navy.   I had independantly come up with the “Warrior, Family, Navy,” but changed the title to fit what the Navy is already using – and yes, sailors are pretty good with ‘F’ words.  I stayed with “Warrior, Family, Navy” however, in most of the text.   Ménage a trois as a reference to a wine is somewhat tongue in cheek. 

—————-

Call it what you will – a ménage a trois, a three legged stool, a harmonic trio, a powerful triumvirate.  The point of this essay is that success for the Fighter, the Family, and the Fleet/ Navy demands that they collaborate as a team, and each must make sacrifices to make the team work.  I have found it useful to think of this three-way relationship as a ‘ménage a trois.’   ‘Ménage’ is French for household and ‘trois’ is three – you may know ‘Ménage a Trois’ as the popular wine that is a wonderful blend of Cabernet, Merlot, and Shiraz.  For our purposes, the Fighter , the Family (particularly the spouse) and the Fleet (meaning the Navy) must work together for the benefit of each and the whole.  If they work at cross purposes or compete with each other, each for their own advantage at the expense of the others, everyone loses.

Increasing Naval Special Warfare (NSW) commitments around the world has increased the stress on our warriors and their families, resulting in less effective warriors, retention shortfalls, broken marriages, and children who have to endure not only having their warrior parent away, but also tension and stress in the family when the warrior is home.

In some ways, not only our enemies but also our families have become victims of our operational successes.

Managing that stress requires communication, teamwork, and collaboration.  We’ve all seen the ménage crack and break up –it is painful to watch.    But we also know colleagues who make it work.  They excel in the field or in the Team, while at home their families thrive. How do they do it? For this ménage a trois to work, each member has an important role to play – it is truly a three-way relationship.

The role of the ‘Fighter’ – the warrior.  I recall as a Commanding Officer calling an outstanding young SEAL into my office to talk about the 60-70 hours he was working every week, and the 75 days of leave he had on the books.  I tried to encourage him to back off a bit, and to take some leave with his family. He politely and professionally told me to mind my own business.   Not many years later, I was saddened but not surprised to learn that he was divorced and his kids were struggling and in trouble.  Our warriors get important psychic rewards from the respect of their peers, and they are driven by the desire to excel as special operators.  And yet, while holding on to that ideal, most choose to get married and have families. They aspire to be good husbands and fathers, but soon realize (or are reminded by their spouses) that this new role as husband and father has responsibilities that frequently require compromising some of their focus on their professional ideal.   The family man/warrior eventually has to turn down or postpone great professional opportunities, in order to put essential time and energy into their marriage, taking care of the kids or doing work around the house.    Every senior NSW leader I know has had to bite his tongue when accosted by an angry spouse for making her husband go on yet another exercise, training event, or deployment, when the leader knows that her husband literally begged to go on that trip.  The warrior is a player in this ménage – he is not merely a passive victim, responding to demands made by the other two players.

The role of the Family and spouse.  We have to assume that the spouse knew that she was marrying someone who either was, or aspired to be, a SEAL or SWCC warrior.  It is no secret that the Navy makes heavy demands on its sailors and their families, and spouses by and large are reconciled to that.  On the other hand, many of us have known spouses who have bitterly resented the Navy, and/or the Teams for the demands that they have made on their families, and (sometimes) for the seemingly adolescent, fun-with-the-boys behavior that ‘the brotherhood’ may bring out in their husbands.     When the spouse is not reconciled to the culture of the Navy or the Teams, it puts significant stress on the marriage, and on the life and professional work of the warrior.  For this ménage to work, the spouse must willingly accept and become friends with that other key player in the warrior’s life – the Navy and the Teams.  Though it may sometimes be difficult, the spouse must try to appreciate the positive sides of the Navy/Teams culture, and accept that there will be sacrifices, as well as rewards.  As one NSW spouse put it to me, “When the spouses feel embraced and respected by the community, they are more likely to make the necessary sacrifices with more pride, and LESS resentment.”

The role of the ‘Fleet’ – the Navy.   The Navy is the 900 pound gorilla in this ménage.  It has been struggling for decades to find the proper balance between using its authority to meet ‘the needs of the Navy,’ and letting some of its objectives slide to support the needs of the family.  Navy and NSW leaders know that they can only draw so much on the good will of the warrior and the family – until the good will and dedication ‘account’ gets dangerously low.    Warriors and their families see their Commanding Officer and Command Master Chief, and Platoon Commander and Platoon Chief, as Navy representatives, since it is they who communicate larger Navy and NSW leadership policy to warriors and families.   These leaders are also closest to the warrior-family connection in the ménage, and must communicate warrior and family concerns to the Navy and NSW leadership.   Navy/NSW leaders must pay attention to these concerns, while continuing to fight for the manning and resources to permit a sustainable optempo.

Obviously, it is important to have a loving, trusting, and compassionate relationship between the warrior and his spouse and family, but addressing that is beyond the scope of this essay.  However, the other key player in the ménage a trois, the Navy, clearly has a role to play in how well that warrior-family relationship functions and evolves.  When the team works well, and all three players are doing their part and collaborating toward the success of each and all, we have three strong players and a whole that is more than the sum of its parts.

TRUST – Mother Theresa and Machiavelli

This essay is about two aspects of moral obligation associated with Trust. Trust is something we seek for ourselves, to gain and preserve. We seek to be trustworthy. Trust is also something that we give to others. We choose to trust or not trust others. I would like to briefly address these two aspects of Trust within the context of moral obligation.

The Trust we seek for ourselves, assuming that we seek to be ‘good,’ morally upright people, is simply that people trust us. Our word is our bond, we are who we say we are, what we say is true, and what we say we’ll do, we’ll do. If what we say is false or we fail to keep a commitment, it is either unintentional, or due to circumstances beyond our control, or because our initial commitment may be over-ridden by the dictates of honor, common sense, or a good greater than our own. We eschew deceit in word, deed, or demeanor. In many ways, our intent to be good closely approximates our intent to be trustworthy. This is the Mother Theresa side of Trust. Our moral aspiration is to be trustworthy, honest, transparent, and upright; we consciously and strenuously avoid deceit and manipulation.

The second side of Trust that I would like to address is that we must be cautious in giving our Trust. This perspective argues that in addition to our moral obligation to be trustworthy, we also have a moral obligation to survive and thrive. This requires that we protect ourselves from predators who would manipulate or exploit us, who seek their own ends at our expense. This is the Machiavellian side of Trust. Machiavelli saw the world as an unforgiving place, in which self-serving people compete, sometimes viciously, in the game of life, eagerly preying upon those who are less clever or less wary than themselves. He and many other (but not all) prominent philosophers viewed this imperative to survive and thrive as ‘morally’ obligatory. We must be careful whom we trust, especially in matters of great importance to us, our livelihood, and our fundamental values.

If we use this perhaps overly-simple ethical model to look at moral obligation, it demands good judgment in balancing our intent to be trustworthy with the need for caution in giving our Trust. While being trustworthy and being trusting are certainly not the same, they are related – in order to be trusted, one must also be ready to trust, and giving Trust necessarily involves risk. While there are certainly risks associated with being overly trusting, there are also risks associated with being overly cautious. One can become cynical and excessively risk averse in dealing with people, and fear of the vulnerability associated with giving Trust can make friendship and intimacy difficult. Trust is (ideally) a two way street, and for the truly trustworthy, this two-way street becomes a network of roads and highways which allow the rich flow of positive energy and collaboration between and among trustworthy people.

This simple model of Trust can be a useful paradigm in business ethics. A businessman seeks to win and retain Trust and loyalty, most importantly from his customers, but also from his partners, and other stakeholders. The trustworthy and competent businessman will usually thrive and prosper, but ONLY if s/he is also wise and judicious in giving Trust. While overly Machiavellian caution results in little reciprocated Trust, being overly trusting can send one quickly into economic oblivion. Mother Theresa was a saint, and served as a model for trustworthiness, but we also need to consider Machiavelli’s caution in dealing with the real world of business competition in an unforgiving world.

The current movement toward Corporate Social Responsibility is largely an effort by corporations to win the public’s Trust. Corporate America is seeing that the public is increasingly willing to give its business to corporations which they trust to pursue not only their own profits, but also the same greater, long term good that the public seeks for itself and their society. Winning the Trust of the public is a business ‘holy grail.’ Losing it can be disastrous.

CAVEAT: This short essay does not address the phenomenon of what I call ‘tribal’ Trust. Tribalism would stipulate that Trust only has moral worth within the tribal structure (the corporation, the community, the political party, the military service, the nation). In this limited understanding of Trust, one can only truly trust those within the tribe, and trustworthiness outside the tribe has little or no moral value. Within the tribe, one frequently wins Trust by successfully deceiving and manipulating those outside the tribe for the benefit of the tribe. Discussing this narrower dimension of Trust is beyond the scope of this essay, but it is certainly worth recognizing.