THE ABILITY TO CHANGE COURSE?

As we've discussed throughout the chapter, the leader needs to maintain a balanced perspective, particularly from an execution standpoint. A leader must be able to balance all the distractions and still make a decision, such as whether to stay the course or make a midcourse correction. Changing direction when it becomes necessary can only be accomplished if the leader stays close enough to what is going on in the company. Once the direction has been set, the leader cannot decide that now is the time to remove herself; she must remain engaged. Changes can hit the competitive landscape, the economy, or the business environment without much warning. Leaders therefore need to be close enough to the business to work with their teams, while also maintaining sufficient distance to maintain peripheral vision and a global perspective, to know when to make a change and why.

When you do make a change, it must be purposeful. An organization cannot alter its course for every little thing that comes along, but rather in response to significant influences. I've always remembered an expression that someone on my team at Baxter used: if you plant a tree but then every Friday someone pulls it up to measure it, you shouldn't wonder why the tree isn't growing. Whether the “tree” is an R&D investment or the launch of a new product, it needs sufficient time to take root and produce results. Again, this is an issue of balance: being stubborn enough to pursue a direction with conviction, but still open minded enough to monitor the landscape for signs of change.

Let's consider a scenario involving a strategic $20 million investment in R&D over two years. We know we have to give it sufficient time to produce some results, but we can't go to the other extreme of not monitoring and measuring outcomes. Teams need to question if the direction is still correct, if the right people are involved in the project, and if certain milestones are being met. If after six months and spending $5 million on the R&D project there are no results, this does not mean that the whole initiative should be scratched. It may be that it's time to drill down to determine if any adjustments need to be made. Has the project encountered some unexpected obstacles that were only recently resolved, or does it now look as though the initial approach is neither practical nor viable? In another version of the scenario, it's possible that after six months and $5 million in investment, significant progress has been made such that the entire process should be accelerated with additional investment in order to bring the product to market more quickly.

Determining whether to stay the course or make a change requires the leader to be self-reflective enough to pursue the important questions, balanced enough to see the issue from as many perspectives as possible, self-confident enough to change her mind and either alter the direction or accelerate the plan, and have enough genuine humility to seek the input of every member of the team, regardless of level, because she hasn't forgotten the cube.

In Part Two, we've discussed what it takes to establish a values-based organization: putting the right people in place, setting a clear direction, communicating effectively, motivating the team, and executing and implementing the strategy. Now it's time to move on to the next phase: leading a world-class organization that is committed to doing the right thing even in times of change, controversy, and crisis, and to being a socially responsible citizen doing its best for the world.