Published by Paul on 09 Feb 2012
I’ve tried everything. No you haven’t says the dog.
lkj
The dog has learned to climb the stairs – all three steep flights of them. Getting down is tricky, though, given that Deerhounds have long, gangly legs and as any climber will tell you, the last thing you need when beating a hasty retreat is four long legs to arrange in sequence.
The thing with dogs, or at least your Scottish Deerhound, is that they are persistent, especially when hungry. And they are persistent with a very narrow range of tactics for success. When Fizz (sic) is hungry she works in strict sequence of opportunity according to which resources are accessible to her. It goes something like this:
- Food bowl
- Kitchen work surfaces
- Waste paper baskets (apple cores, sweet wrappers, used tissues, anything else worth shredding/eating)
- Ask to go out and patrol garden for duck eggs – especially straw bedding in duck houses
- Final resort – eat anything spongy and filling (car washing sponges and pot scourers are more filling than they look)
- Rest in front of the fire
- Go to step 1
“Ha-ha, look at the silly doggy” we laugh.
“Cute but dumb” we think.
Really? Is that really a dumb routine?
Repetitious it certainly is, but dumb it is not. The fact is, it always produces a result that gets something into her stomach which is more than you can say for some companies who have perished in the last few years. So whilst the actions in themselves might be ill-advised, the continuity and persistence requires a closer look.
Innovation, we are always being told, is the stuff of survival. I agree – to a point. New ideas that solve problems or create some life improvement are indeed a fabulous feature of our evolution as humans and of our evolution as humans in commerce. However, one shortcoming of our appetite for innovation is that it leads us to keep switching approaches – sometimes with catastrophic consequences. We rarely, it seems, test anything new for long enough to discover the upsides that follow the opportunity costs.
Consequently, many strategic directions set by company boards and governments are ever worked through properly, often because the initiative is either not an instant crowd pleaser or because it simply entails steady, consistent, tedious-yet-skilful repetition. The consequence is almost permanent upheaval as change is introduced and then dropped and replaced by another strategy. So every time a change is about to bed in and perhaps yield some progress, someone comes along with another ‘good idea’. The result is no progress but tiring upheaval, unsettled teams and individuals who cease to apply themselves to anything because they can be pretty confident that their efforts will be redirected before they have had time to become fruitful.
“We’ve tried everything” the leaders utter. “Yes!” comes the reply – “everything except sticking to the plan!”
But how long should one stick to the plan that is costing time and money and yielding nothing? Is it not true that some strategies really should be abandoned as quickly as possible because they were bad from the outset?
“Yes!” comes the reply, now at a shout, “so stop coming up with the stupid stuff!”
So what does the dumb doggy say? She says: “keep it simple and keep it up”. And then she goes to bed.


