The Myth of Procedure Over Process
Compass Point | 003
This week the theme was myths. We are going to explore this further, but from a more organizational and worldview perspective. Rather than putting out this compass point yesterday and a contour line today, I elected to do a slightly longer compass point today. I hope you enjoy.
Many of the failures and victories found in any aspect of life revolve around the perception of permanency, and the absolute belief in the process of growth you choose. At the organizational level, it’s often the leader’s conceptualization of their available choices, organizational capabilities, or interpretation of their arena that determines how victory is understood. Whether fighting a counterinsurgency or competing in business, in retelling Arthurian legends or forging success as an independent rapper, myths constantly shape the choices leaders take.
Counterinsurgency is a Racket of Assumptions
The exploration of myth has taken me back to my days researching insurgencies and irregular warfare strategy. There was one book that changed the course of my mindset, Illusions of Victory: The Anbar Awakening and the Rise of the Islamic State by Carter Malkasian.1 Having been raised in the U.S. Army infantry on Petraus’s Counter Insurgency (COIN) Doctrine, when I entered university I aspired to work for the intelligence or defense industries as an expert on organizational structures and strategies of insurgent and terrorist organizations. I had been led to believe that COIN worked, yet in the years between leaving active service and going to college, ISIS had swept through and violently retaken most of Iraq.
The burning question in my mind, was why?
How could this have happened, when we had so much success that one of my deployments was canceled due to the withdrawal from Iraq - we had won, right? The Iraqi government and military had secured and stabilized things, thanks to our intervention. Ah, yes, that was it.
Thanks to our intervention. Not their own agency.
As I quickly dove into my first literature review of undergrad, I realized everything I had learned about insurgencies was from a tactical and regional level strategic point of view, and a Western one at that. They don’t talk much at the lower enlisted level about the geopolitics of strategy. It’s a shame really, I know a lot of smart people that could have told the strategists the lessons that would be learned after we left. And in fact, there were people at all levels of leadership that did see the writing on the wall, but ignored it, which Malkasian discusses regarding the fall of Iraq to ISIS:
“We missed these signposts. Success over-wrote them. The Tribal movement’s success was so militarily impressive that we mistook it as irreversible, rather than a momentary break in tribal infighting.” (Malkasian, 2017, p. 22)
The illusion of victory. The celebration before the finish line. The assumptions of supremacy because we had confirmation bias that western democracy and warfare had prevailed. Or maybe we were just tired and leapt at the chance to be right because that meant we could come home. What the rise of ISIS showed us, is that the resistance to Al-Qaeda in Iraq had not been because of an Iraqi - envisioned, self reliant movement. Without U.S. backed funding keeping the tribal leaders in power, everything crumbled.
The book is a quite excellent expose on how the interpretation of victory by either side determines what “victory” looks like in long run. It details how long term change, (within the contexts of the book discussed as intervention), cannot take place with a just a few years effort, and furthermore, requires buy-in from relevant stakeholders - in this case the leaders and people of Iraq. One of the key takeaways, which Malkasian regards as a major lesson regarding these types of conflicts, is that:
“Social and cultural factors underlay the outcome. The larger meaning … is that the course of an insurgency, an internal conflict, or a civil war may be determined by unmalleable internal dynamics more than the actions of an outside power…” (Malkasian, 2017, p. 20)
The interesting aspect of Malkasian’s work is that the lessons learned are particular transferable to other businesses (If you don’t believe that war is a business, take it up with Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, author of the book War is a Racket).
How many companies or organizations generate sweeping success, whether in sales, R&D, you name it, only to not have it work in subsequent years or different sectors of the economy. What myths were being told by the leadership, the established authorities? The company was too big to fail? The customer didn’t want the feature the competitor had, or that it wouldn’t be much of a threat (A la BlackBerry executives circa 2007)?2
And yet there are massive companies with such hierarchy and structure that they couldn’t possibly be equated to insurgencies, such as Haier and Cemex, that have success for the very same reasons as insurgencies do. They challenge their industry’s myths on how to succeed.
While what generates myth, what is behind the remembered terrorist attack, or the unveiling of the newest technological marvel, is the people, process management, and innovation that keeps these organizations marching forward. No organization can thrive without the buy-in and effort of the strategic implementers, and this is why leaders must foster a positive culture that empowers every echelon of worker. When everyone is empowered, the standard operating procedure for the company becomes a flow of innovation. Process management becomes second nature, not a constricting chains of conformity leading to micromanagement.
This concept is clarified in another book that challenged my assumptions on insurgencies, The Terrorist’s Dilemma, by Jacob N. Shapiro, who argues that successful insurgent and terrorists groups don't “win” because of the big events, but by managing the mundane. Behind all the purposely visible and heinous acts, is logic and organization. Despite the obvious difference in the arena of competition, insurgents are for all intents and purposes the violent equivalent of Clayton Christensen’s “disruptive innovators.”3
The nature of needing to remain covert yet effective requires ideology (transpose the concept onto corporate values and mission), but even more so efficient supply chain logistics and effective communication, not so far removed from the methods in which you might get groceries at your local supermarket (Shapiro, 2013, p. 249). Shapiro dispels the myth of insurgent “otherness” quite well with his assertion that:
The more we can see terrorists groups for what they are - ordinary organizations operating at a tremendous disadvantage. (Shapiro, 2013, p.3)
But surely there must be something that separates warfare and business. What about the assumption that all terrorists and insurgents hate whomever they are fighting, and that viewpoint is rampant throughout the organization? Myth, just as in how executive leadership and front-line workers see their role in the company and sector of the economy differently.
Agents in terrorist organizations often see the world differently than their leaders and tend to disagree with them on how best to serve the cause and how to carry out specific missions. (Shapiro, 2013, p.4)
It is the role of leaders to not only envision the desired end state, but to communicate this throughout the entire organization, and when subordinates challenge the myth, to not brush aside inquiry but ask why. What do they see that we don’t? Taking this line of questioning to an industry level - what myths do incumbent leaders and companies believe that allow disruptors to challenge what it takes to succeed?
Thanks to Shapiro we can determine at least a few aspects. Rather than seeing success as a combination of luck and opportunity, it’s utmost efficiency in the little mundane tasks involved in prepping the big move. It’s challenging the systems and being flexible in how you approach each problem you face. While it may be inefficient for some to not always adhere to a replicable method, it’s simply a strategic choice for other's, as Christensen discusses in the Harvard Business Review:
“The problem with conflating a disruptive innovation with any breakthrough that changes an industry’s competitive patterns is that different types of innovation require different strategic approaches. To put it another way, the lessons we’ve learned about succeeding as a disruptive innovator (or defending against a disruptive challenger) will not apply to every company in a shifting market.” (Christensen, 2015)
And herein lies the essence of Malkasian’s illusion of victory - Iraq post withdrawal was a shifting market. The same factors for success were not present post-withdrawel, and furthermore, the same strategy wouldn’t work in a more rural Afghanistan. There is no counterinsurgency doctrine that is universally applicable, as insurgent leaders in any other industry would be considered “disruptors,” returning to Christensen:
““Disruption” describes a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge established incumbent businesses … Entrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments, gaining a foothold by delivering more-suitable functionality—frequently at a lower price. Incumbents, chasing higher profitability in more-demanding segments, tend not to respond vigorously. Entrants then move upmarket, delivering the performance that incumbents’ mainstream customers require, while preserving the advantages that drove their early success. (Christiansen, 2015)
Change the wording, and you are not talking about Netflix or Uber taking on the video and taxi industries, you speak to the ways in which Al Qaeda or the Vietcong fought the United States. The nature of disruption in business is the way of the insurgent. It’s not in product, nor in sales. It’s in the mindset of the leaders.
“The term “disruptive innovation” is misleading when it is used to refer to a product or service at one fixed point, rather than to the evolution of that product or service over time” (Christiansen, 2015)
This is how leaders can succeed, by choosing process over procedure. When you choose the path of liminality over certainty, you lead teams that can disrupt, surivive, and thrive any change in mission or market. It is process, not procedure.
Underground or Insurgent, Media and Myth
This mindset is found anywhere you have leaders. In Compass Point 001, we discussed a rapper that has recently blown up on the international stage. Let’s look at an underground titan of the industry that has been around since the 1990s, selling millions of albums with his music features on TV, movies, video games, and sporitng events, collaborating with Lil Wayne Rage Against The Machine’s Serj Tankian, Kendrick Lamar, and Eminem, to name just a few out the over 400 guest appearences on his 22 studio albums.
Despite these accolade, Tech N9ne has stayed in the underground scene, yet to find” mainstream success” according to the traditional standards, having never been played on the radio or had a major label backing him. A native of Kansas City, Missouri, Tech N9ne started rapping as teenager, but never had luck with labels, and so started his own (Strange Music, partially inspired by the Doors song People are Strange) in 1999.
Where other artists relied on needing a big break, needing to impress a label in order to find success, Tech N9ne reframed how to succeed in the music industry by focusing on slow-growth longevity rather than viral hits. Each successive album release combined with better distribution partnership pushed Strange Music to sell hundreds of thousands more records as the years went on. Rather than renting studios, they built their own, custom-built for what their people needed to engineer success.
Tech N9ne continued this trend of self-relience with his co-founder and CEO of Strange Music Travis O’Guinn setting up smaller companies (Strange Headquarters (CEO, Accounting, Social Media, etc), StrangeLand (Recording Studio, Video, Soundstage), StrangeWorld (Merchandise Manfucturing, Order Fullfillment), StrangeWorks (Construction), even a car wash for their vehicles) to support Strange Music’s label acts, rather than outsource and rely on others. This allows for artists on Tech N9ne’s label (including himself) to have a consistent touring schedule, with the label having over 430 shows in 2018.4
It wasn’t the big viral hits that everyone remembered that lead to Tech N9ne having a net worth of around $20 million.
Strange Music succeeded where the Anbar Awakening failed. They didn’t rely on large infrastructure, a benefactor to keep them afloat. They decentralized their needs under a set of cells while maintaining control, all the while having buy in from their stakeholders. It wasn’t by looking at the industry not in the way which the established authority wants you to play. It wasn’t searching for the big wins. It was dedication, vision, and a process of managing the mundane.
Tech N9ne may be an outlier in his industry, but without question he is a model to follow. We have to ask ourselves as leaders, where do we start in envisioning operating against the myths we believe if it does not come naturally to us? Let us look to myth once again, but ones that are cautionary tales rather than executive narratives.
How Do We Foster Myth-breaking?
In Studio A24’s 2021 film The Green Knight, we are met with the character of Gawain, the nephew of King Arthur who has not become a knight. He is eager, overly so, to prove himself worthy of attaining the noble status. Young, impetous, he has internalized the narratives commonly found in Arthurian legend of chivalry and heroism, and what it means to be honorable.
When Gawain is presented with choices necessitating moral ambiguity, he begins to question his internal myths shaped by the expectations of the court’s external portrayel of honor, an illusion put out by societies expectations of “how to do things the the proper way.” His journey becomes one not of fullfilling these expectations, but rather one of self-understanding and validation. He needs to understand where he is lacking in order to strengthen his character.
The ending of the film subverts the traditional heroic ending trope of clear triumph. Leaving it more open ended for the audience to interpret Gawain’s journey of introspection regarding his life, we see the main character choosing to understand and accept himself, walking a different path rather than proving himself to others, something that Tech N9ne has discussed in multiple interviews.5 Ultimately, the story is not of grand accomplishments, but the manner in which one approaches life, the managing of the mundane.
Leadership Lessons
We’ve gone from the geopolitical framework down to the individual in an attempt to show you that myths are everywhere, and highly important - almost as much so as the people that perpetuate and believe in them. There are myriad lessons that can be transposed onto the work landscape of the 21st century amidst the rise of AI, remote work, and the creator economy.
As a leader, either in a role of authority or simply someone with influence - you get to choose if you believe the myths your organization operations under. You can only do that however, if you allow yourself to question the myths you hold about yourself, and how to achieve your dreams.
You always have a choice, there is always another way. To think otherwise is to accept the myth of permanence. Rather than focusing on your big wins and milestones, start by streamlining your everyday life, and that of your team. Build slow growth that will be resilient.
When you have a win, large or small, examine why you succeeded, rather than assuming, or confirming the answer you want to hear. Embrace the liminal growth that comes with uncertainty, and reconceptualize how to thrive. If you don’t the competition will.
For a more in depth review of Malkasian’s book, check out the following reviews:
https://warontherocks.com/2017/10/what-do-we-really-know-about-the-anbar-awakening/
https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2018/1/15/reviewing-illusions-of-victory-the-anbar-awakening-story
https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2015/05/26/blackberry-iphone-book/
https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation
https://www.leessummit.org/lees-summit-makes-strange-yet-successful-home-for-top-music-label/
https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2023/08/08/hip-hop-an-50-tech-n9ne/
Procedure inherently means bureaucratic steps to change the model if and when change is entertained. Process can have improvements asked in. Really important to say why they both are important. And understand the role of each.