The management guru Peter Drucker reportedly once said, "Culture eats strategy for lunch." I won't disagree with one of the leading authorities on management science, and in my experience, I've usually found this statement to be true. However, I would also say that it's hard to completely separate strategy from culture, as organizations with the "right culture" usually have the "right strategy" and vice versa. As Boris Groysberg, Jeremiah Lee, Jesse Price, and J. Yo-Jud Cheng write in a Harvard Business Review article (see "The Leader's Guide to Corporate Culture"), "strategy and culture are among the primary levers" for leaders. Strategy helps provide a roadmap about how an organization will achieve its overarching goals. It's hard to accomplish anything in the absence of a guiding vision and set of priorities to help guide where an organization allocates its resources. Culture, however, is perhaps less tangible and encompasses the organization's values, beliefs, assumptions, and norms. As Groysberg and his colleagues suggest (and I couldn't agree more), culture is "a more elusive lever, because much of it is anchored in unspoken behaviors, mindsets, and social patterns."
With this framework in mind, I want to talk about the Battle of Trafalgar, a naval engagement that occurred on October 21, 1805 and which resulted in an overwhelming victory for the British Royal Navy over the combined fleets of France and Spain (see the excellent article, "Why Trafalgar was won before it was fought: Lessons from resource-based theory" by Charles Pringle and Mark Kroll published in the Academy of Management Executive journal in 1997). Pringle and Kroll suggest that Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, generally regarded as the greatest officer in the history of the British Royal Navy possessed the superior advantages of leadership, strategy, and culture that more or less made the victory at Trafalgar a foregone conclusion.
By the time of the Battle of Trafalgar, Napoleon Bonaparte dominated Europe, but he needed to conquer England in order to become the true master of Europe and the Mediterranean. Napoleon knew that he would have to invade England, but in order to do that, he would first have to defeat the Royal Navy. The British Royal Navy had achieved what many before had not thought possible, a string of major victories over Napoleon's navy (Napoleon himself would say in 1815, "In all my plans I have always been thwarted by the British Fleet"). He had assembled a combined French-Spanish fleet, which was unfortunately bottled up in the Spanish port of Cadiz, near Cape Trafalgar (which is near the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea). Thirty-three ships (and 30,000 men) under the command of French Vice Admiral Pierre Charles de Villeneuve sailed from Cadiz on October 18, 1805. Two days later, they were intercepted by the British fleet of 27 ships (and 17,000 men) under the command of Nelson.
Villeneuve formed his ships into a single line of battle, which was the tactic at that time. Nelson, however, did something completely different. He ordered his ships into two groups, which cut through the French-Spanish line at a right angle. This unconventional tactic surprised the French-Spanish fleet, creating confusion and giving the advantage to the British. Within a few hours, the Royal Navy had destroyed or captured eighteen of Villeneuve's ships without losing a single ship. They seized thousands of prisoners, including Villeneuve himself. It was an overwhelming victory for the British, who only suffered 1,500 casualties (unfortunately, one of those casualties was Lord Nelson, who was shot and killed by a French sniper).
Let's look at what Pringle and Kroll have to say about the battle. As a reminder, they believe that the British victory was all but a foregone conclusion, primarily due superior leadership (Nelson), strategy, and culture. The first key factor was, of course, Nelson. He was an inspirational leader, a brilliant strategist, and and unconventional tactician. Pringle and Kroll write, "Two hundred years after the Battle of Trafalgar, Nelson is still regarded as one of the most ingenious battle strategists and effective field commanders in naval history." Villeneuve was outmatched in every way, and he knew it. Nelson also believed in decentralized authority and responsibility (an early proponent of the High Reliability Organization principle of "Deference to Expertise"?). Particularly in the heat of battle, Nelson would say that "England expects that every man will do his duty" and "...in case signals can neither be seen or perfectly understood, no captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy."
The second key factor that separated the British from the French was England's seafaring heritage. Napoleon himself recognized that "one could not be a good seaman unless one was brought up to it from the cradle." England was and always has been an island nation with a proud seafaring heritage. Sea trade was vital to the economy, and the best way to protect that trade was to control the sea lanes. The British Royal Navy was the most powerful navy in the world at that time. Just as important, though England had a smaller population compared to France, it had three times as many merchant ships as the French. All of this created a steady supply of trained, experienced sailors. In addition, going to sea was one of the few opportunities to advance in society, which helped create a continuous supply of experienced officers as well. Promotions were based largely upon merit, so leaders like Nelson rose through the ranks because of their knowledge, abilities, and skills.
The third key factor was the winning tradition of the British Royal Navy. The Royal Navy had already won 8 major sea battles over the French, three of which were led by Nelson. They had never lost a battle, and they expected to win (whereas the French and Spanish did not). They shared a common goal (defending England, their home) and a common culture. In contrast, the Spanish were reluctant allies at best and expected to be sold out by the French. The Spanish Admiral had already asked to be relieved of command prior to the battle, and Villeneuve himself had been previously defeated by Nelson at the Battle of the Nile in 1798.
Pringle and Kroll believe that if the Battle of Trafalgar had been fought five times, the British would have won five times. It was that one-sided of a victory! They state, "The Royal Navy's success was based on its ability to convey understanding of its mission and goals to its members, to socialize them into the navy's culture, to train them how to perform their jobs, and then to empower them to make their own decisions within broad policy guidlines." Here, once again, Pringle and Kroll emphasize the importance of culture. But they also emphasize the importance of "Deference to Expertise" and write, "When an organization - or ship - is in a rapidly changing environment, it is essential that members who are on the scene be able to make their own decisions." I could not have said it better myself.
There are a number of important takeaways here for organizations today. Here is a blueprint for how to build a culture that eats strategy for lunch (some of which come directly from Pringle and Kroll's article and some of which I added, based on my interpretation of their article):
1. Understand and accentuate the organization's heritage.
Heritage is an important part of organizational culture. As Pringle and Kroll write, "Heroes, stories, legends, rituals, and symbols are important elements of any organization's tradition. They inspire not only the organization's members, but also those who seek to join." However, there is one important consideration that absolutely should be kept in mind as well (see next point below).
2. Cultivate a strong culture - but one that embraces change.
Organizations should build upon their heritage and cultural traditions, yet at the same time, they should be willing to embrace change, when necessary (see my posts "The need for change is not an indictment of the past", "Culture eats strategy", "Reverence versus Respect", and "Holiday Traditions"). Building on the comments above, Pringle and Kroll write, "Accentuating heritage does not mean saying, 'this is the way we have always done it, and we have been successful, so why should we change?' Pride in an organization's past accomplishments can be instilled while simultaneously embracing change through a deliberate, ongoing, and widespread socialization process." The onboarding process is a great time to socialize cultural heritage!
There is simply no way that a leader can be involved in every single decision throughout an organization. Leaders should establish guardrails, based upon the overall mission, vision, and key priorities (i.e. the strategy) of the organization. Within these guardrails, frontline leaders should have full authority, responsibility, and accountability for making decisions on their own (see also the related concepts of "commander's intent and "Auftragstaktik").
4. "Leaders must lead."
Leaders should follow Nelson's example and lead by example. Nelson's ship, the HMS Victory, was the first ship in the fight. One of my mentors used to say that, "As a leader, I won't ask anyone to do something that I am not willing to do myself." Albert Schweitzer said, "The three most important ways to lead people are...by example, by example, by example." Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Example is the best lesson there is..." You get the idea. Leaders lead.
5. "The more we sweat in training, the less they bleed in war!"
I first heard this when I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy. Basically, this means that organizations should invest in training. The return on investment is immeasurable.
No comments:
Post a Comment