Art AND Science

THE STORY
About a year ago, I got a phone call from a headhunter. She wanted to know if I would be interested in a position at one of the world’s largest retailers. I’m always polite to headhunters and told her I would be interested if there was a good fit between myself and the company.

The headhunter started to ask me some questions. Eventually, she asked me a hypothetical question about what I would do if the environment had changed and I needed to change the strategy of the company. I basically told her two things:

1) First, in a retail chain that large, I would always have a handful of stores experimenting with new ideas and tactics, so that one can constantly learn about what can and cannot work for the company. Then, when there is the need to change, you already have gathered some data through these experiments to help you decide how to change.

2) Second, I would take some decisive action, but I would remain alert and flexible about how the consumer is reacting to the change. I would monitor consumer reaction through research and creatively improve and modify “on the run” as I rolled out the change throughout the chain.

At this point the headhunter stopped me and said that I was definitely not the type of person the company was looking for. I asked why not and she said it was because of the way I answered that question. She said this company definitely did not want somebody who experimented or creatively modified their approach. They were looking for someone who already knew exactly what to do in every future situation and would just order the troops to quickly carry out the program. She explained how the company’s culture was very militaristic and how there were looking for people who would bark out clear orders like a general and expect the employees to obey the clear orders like good soldiers.

After hearing that, I agreed that there was not a good fit for me as an employee at this company. I did, however, offer to solve their problems as an independent consultant. The headhunter, admitting how difficult it was to find the type of candidate the firm was looking for, said “You’d be amazed how many people made the same offer you did.”

THE ANALOGY
A dear friend of mine likes to say that “business is an art that uses scientific tools.” To stay ahead in business, one needs to creatively think outside the box and move in new directions. This is the art of business. No amount of pure science can get you there. At the same time, however, scientific research is needed to provide a fundamental baseline of knowledge. Without this scientific knowledge, the creativity becomes random and can lead you astray. Therefore, you need both art AND science to effectively build the strategies of success.

In the story above, the company trying to hire someone apparently did not have the patience for either art or science. They did not like the idea of scientific experimentation or consumer research. To them, this was a sign of weakness that you were not already smart enough to know the answers. So science was out at this company.

In addition, they didn’t like the artistic approach of evaluating the situation at hand and coming up with a uniquely creative solution for that particular problem. They also didn’t like someone who was flexible in implementation, creatively adapting as new data came in. Again, they saw this as a sign of weakness that you didn’t already have a one-size-fits all solution that could easily be mandated to the troops. So art was out at this company as well.

This may help to explain why investors were losing confidence in this company and why the CEO of this company recently left the firm. The investors realized that without art and science, this company would have significant difficulty dealing with the problems that inevitably arise from the changing environment. Strategies are more than just barking out orders. They are creative, artistic approaches based on the knowledge from scientific learnings.

THE PRINCIPLE
The principle here is one of balance—a balance between artistic creativity and scientific research. If you get out of balance, your strategies could easily lead you astray. Here are some of the risks when you get out of balance.

1) All Science, No Art: The Risk of Moving Backwards
I had a boss once who only believed in “fact-based” decision making. He wouldn’t do anything unless all the facts were in. He lived by the flaw of embracing science, but ignoring art. There are three flaws to this imbalance:

• You cannot scientifically measure that which does not yet exist. Trying to create the strategy of the future requires moving in new directions. Studying the past may not tell you the whole story of how the future could unfold. It is like driving forward while only looking in the rear view mirror. Eventually you drive into a tree.
• Studying what is working today is like benchmarking the best-in-class competition. It may help you become almost as good as what the current leader is doing, but it won’t help you find a unique point of differentiation. You will only be seen as a close, but inferior version of the leader.
• If you wait to move until all the facts are in, it may be too late to stake a claim in that future. Others will jump in with less than full science and own the position before you begin. All you end up doing is chronicling someone else’s success.

Nearly all great innovations have come from inspiration, and they were not something that customers were clamoring for in research. People have a hard time articulating that for which they have no experience. Your job is often to find what people desire before they realize it.

2) All Art, No Science: The Risk of Moving Sideways
Some people have great intuition and artistically guess very well (or so it seems). Therefore, you may think you have the “golden gut” as well, and when your get tells you to move in a certain way, you do so—without any scientific investigation. What usually results is randomness, rather than effectiveness. What we often do not realize is that usually the people we admire as great artists are actually also great observers of human nature. Although their studies may not be formalized science, it is scientific observation none-the-less.

Art alone can be easily swayed by emotions and fads. You may end up chasing every fad and end up nowhere in particular. Science is needed to divide the fads from the true trends. Studies have shown that the TV advertisements which win the most awards for creativity are often among the commercials least effective at moving products. Science is needed to focus the artistic energy in a successful direction.

3) No Art, No Science: The Risk of Perfecting the Obsolete
This is the example of the company in our story. These are the people who think there is a “one-size-fits-all” trick that works in every situation. That trick could be:

• Cutting Costs
• Six-Sigma
• Balanced Scorecard
• Decentralize the Centralized (or Centralize the Decentralized)
• Etc.

No need for scientific scrutiny. No need for creative thinking. Just pull out your favorite trick and put it into action. Granted, these types of activities can have some impact and may make you more efficient or more effective at what you do. Unfortunately, if your basic go-to-market strategy is wrong or inappropriate for the times, all you have done is perfect the obsolete. At some point, enough change will take place in the marketplace to cause your underlying strategy to fail. These tricks don’t help you find the next strategy.

SUMMARY
Effective strategy is all about getting the proper balance. You need some scientific insights to ground your decision making, but you don’t want to get so bogged down in research that you never get around to taking a leap forward in a distinctive direction. Artistic inspiration is also an essential element, but in isolation, inspiration may run you down the rabbit trails of every fad. Productivity tricks are also useful, but they only make good strategic decisions better. They do not create the good strategy. Remember, business is an art that uses scientific tools.

FINAL THOUGHTS
The only way to get an effective balance of art and science is by creating a culture which encourages both. I never could have brought that balance to the company mentioned in the story, because their military culture would not allow it. Culture must change first. Let’s hope the new CEO of that company can effectively change the culture.