Back in May 2013, I read (and
reviewed) David McCullough's excellent
The Path Between the Seas- the story of the Panama Canal. As I stated then, I thought the book was more than a good history work- it's also an excellent leadership resource. Today's post focuses on that aspect- on
some lessons in leadership I learned from reading this (it would take too much space to reflect on them all). The quotes presented, unless stated otherwise, are all from the book.
Background
Before diving in, I need to present my basic theory on leadership (hardly original to me, though I may use uncommon terminology). What is a leader's job? It's to accomplish a goal efficiently and effectively. Something needs to be done- some goal is set. Consider that goal "point B"- the desired end state. Let's say the current state is "point A." Thus, the leader is to get from point A to point B efficiently and effectively. There are three things involved in this:
1) Knowing point A ("where am I now?")
2) Knowing point B ("where do I want to be?")
3) Planning to get from A to B ("how do I get there from here?")
Why do I couch things in such terms? Because such segmentation allows me to focus on certain areas. In many (but not all) cases, people know point B- they know where they want to get. The trick is, many overlook point A (they don't know exactly where they are). And that's the problem: how can you get to point B if you don't know your point A? This sets the stage for today's post. I first look at the importance of knowing point A, then discuss some key aspects in getting from A to B. I skip a discussion of point B, because in our example, it was the only thing they knew from the outset (goal: a canal through Central America).
The Importance of Point A
I'm increasingly convinced that data, rather the lack thereof, is the reason we have so many failed efforts in our world today. We just don't know our point A. For example, I believe that Congress- regardless of side- wants to make life better for Americans. Why, then, do the parties come to such opposite conclusions on how life can be improved? There are really only two options: they're either incompetent, or their data is incomplete/incorrect. I believe it's the latter (though I'm sure a healthy dose of the former exists). As Jim Collins says in
Good to Great, when "you start with an honest and diligent effort to determine the truth of the situation, the right decisions often become self-evident." In other words: if you have the right data,
gathered without bias, how to proceed becomes obvious. So, going back to Congress, the parties arrive at different conclusions because they're not looking at the complete and correct data. Each side
believes they are, of course- listen in on any political conversation, and you're likely to hear stats or facts that validate their point of view- but neither side has it right. I believe both sides are looking at a subset of facts that validate their desired direction- they're not looking at the complete story. Or, worse, the facts they're looking at are flat-out incorrect. I digress; the point is that data matters. If you want something to succeed, from the smallest project to the largest corporate endeavor, you have to go in with complete and correct data pertaining to it. In other words, you have to know point A- where you are
today.
In
Path Between the Seas, we see many examples of why data matters. In a nutshell, the initial French effort failed because they didn't get the right data- they messed up point A.
The great overriding problem, however, was the extremely low level of reliable geographical information on Central America, and this despite more than fifty years of debate over where a canal ought to go, despite volumes of so-called geographical research, engineering surveys, perhaps a hundred articles in popular magazines and learned journals, promotional pamphlets, travel books, and the fact that Panama, Nicaragua, and Tehuantepec had all been heavily traveled shortcuts to the Pacific since the time of the California gold craze.
Think about this- they'd debated where to put a canal for over
50 years, but nobody bothered gathering reliable geographical data that would have aided their decision. They had no idea where they were today. Everyone knew the point B ("we want a canal"), but nobody looked at point A (the current situation, which would show the reality of what it would mean to dig a canal in Central America). They knew what they wanted, but had no idea how to do it in that environment. Wow.
Now, to be fair, there were data gathering efforts, but there was a problem. The data that was gathered wasn't obtained systematically. It wasn't complete or correct. Of the multiple efforts to determine the truth,
. . . whose word was to be trusted? Which data were reliable? The information available had been gathered in such extremely different fashions by such a disparate assortment of individuals, even the best of whom found it impossible to remain objective about his own piece of work. The more difficult it was to obtain the data, the higher their cost in physical hardship, time, or one’s own cash, the harder it was to appraise them dispassionately. The conditions under which the field work had to be conducted were not only difficult in the extreme, but even the best-intentioned, most experienced men could be gravely misled if they allowed themselves to be influenced by the “feel” of the terrain, as nearly all of them had at one time or another.
That brings me to a related point: to know your point A, data must be gathered
systematically,
thoroughly, and
objectively. Look at each case from a fresh perspective; don't let past experience, beliefs, or desires cloud your impressions. The only thing worse than no data is useless data- data which is so biased or incomplete/incorrect that it's unusable.
In the end, the French didn't gather data well, where they gathered it at all. The whole thing became an exercise in conjecture. Many produced recommendations, but
The truth is that all the canal projects proposed, every cost estimated, irrespective of the individual or individuals responsible, were hopelessly unrealistic if not preposterous. Every supposed canal survey made by mid-century was patently flawed by bad assumptions or absurdly inadequate data. Assertions that the task would be simple were written by fools or by men who either had no appropriate competence or who, if they did, had never laid eyes on a rain forest.
The initial data gathering didn't happen well; the French wasted time, money, and lives as a result. They didn't know their point A, so getting to point B became much harder. Why didn't the French concern themselves too much about point A? It's because they made a fatal assumption: it would be like the last time they attempted a similar undertaking, which brings me to a sidebar.
Sidebar: Past Victories Can Hinder
The French suffered, in a sense, from their prior victory. Not too many years previous, they had built the Suez Canal. They allowed that success to cloud their vision in Panama.
They were allowing the triumph at Suez to distort their capacity to see things for what they were. Suez and Panama must not be regarded as comparable . . . The environmental conditions were opposite in the extreme. “At Suez there is a lack of water, the terrain is easy, the land nearly the same level as the sea; in spite of the heat, it is a perfectly healthy climate. In tropical America, there is too much water, the terrain is mostly rock, the land has considerable relief, and finally the country is literally poisoned.” To act in the same manner in places of such opposite character, he declared, would be to “outrage nature” instead of to benefit by it, “which is the primary goal of the engineer.”
Building a canal may seem to be the same challenge regardless of location- but it's not. Neither is anything we undertake. Each situation requires new solutions. Know when to rely on past experience and techniques- and when to recognize that a completely different approach is required. Don't assume your last point A is the same point A this time around. The French did, and they failed because of it.
Sidebar: Presenting Data
Another quick sidebar: it's not enough to gather good data; you have to know how to present it well. Engineers must often speak with those in leadership- and have to know how to speak in ways non-engineers can understand. In Panama, some involved were presenting to the U.S. Congress on ways forward- they were building a case for building in Panama vs. Nicaragua:
[Engineer] Bunau-Varilla, no less busy than Cromwell, had contributed a number of clever diagrams of his own design, all based on the canal commission’s own statistics, each pointing up Panama’s essential engineering and navigational virtues. The diagrams were as simple as illustrations in a child’s primer, conveying their message at a glance and easy to remember. They were an inspiration, [Senator] Hanna saw instantly. The inevitable problem with technical reports, with any arguments based on technical data, was that few would read them, and the only advantage that Panama could claim was its technical superiority. [underline mine]
Leaders need to know what's going on- but they don't have to understand every little detail. Indeed, they often cannot- their background is such that true understanding would take years of study. Instead, they must be given information in terms they can understand. Thus, after gathering data, you must have someone who understands the details be able to "boil it down" to what leaders can use. Simply, easy to remember, and correct: that is how the data needs to be presented.
Getting from A to B
So let's say you know your points A and B. How do you get from one to the other? What will it take?
In Panama, there was an obvious route from A to B: "dig a lot." Want a canal? Keep digging until you get one! Naturally, it's not that simple, but that's the brunt of it- they needed to dig. But where? How? And most importantly: what is likely to
impede the digging? Again, it starts with point A.
Once the Americans took over, they obtained a better awareness of point A. They learned the terrain, and identified areas that would be harder to dig. More importantly, however, are the focus areas they realized were necessary to
enable the digging. There were three:
1) The railroad
A robust railroad infrastructure was necessary for many reasons. Shuttling personnel, equipment, and dirt efficiently was of prime importance. The Americans got that; the French didn't.
Whereas Ferdinand de Lesseps had failed to see the project as fundamentally a railroad problem and neglected to send a single railroad specialist to Panama, Stevens never saw it as anything other than that, and he recruited railroad men only.
2) The Chagres River
A major river, the Chagres, ran near and along the Panama Canal route. Every year, it flooded, and every year, that caused major problems. Again, the French failed to realize this, and it cost them dearly.
Determined to make Congress and the country understand the nature of the problem, he kept hammering at the same fundamental idea that de Lépinay had failed to put across before the gathering in Paris. “The one great problem in the construction of any canal down there is the control of the Chagres River,” he insisted. “That overshadows everything else.”
3) Disease Control & Infrastructure
In the early years of canal construction, yellow fever and malaria ravaged the workers. It's hard to accomplish your goal when your labor keeps falling ill/dying . . . and the medical awareness at the time was such that it took a long time to figure out how to eradicate the problem. Eventually, they traced the source to mosquitoes and developed the appropriate measures to contain them. In the end, the French lost about 22,000 men to disease . . . the Americans, 5,600.
“As you know, I feel that the sanitary and hygienic problems . . . on the Isthmus are those which are literally of the first importance, coming even before the engineering . . .” Roosevelt declared.
In addition to disease, the infrastructure (sanitation, housing, etc) was initially poor, which led to more problems. This had to be solved as well to enable efficient digging.
Once the Americans confronted and solved these three problems, the main task- digging- could be successful. At that point,
“There is no element of mystery involved in it,” Stevens reported to Washington, “ . . . the problem is one of magnitude and not miracles.”
My overall point is this: the main goal (here, digging) may require several supporting goals (railroad, river control, and disease control) to be accomplished first. Remember the main thing- but remember that other things may be required to allow the main thing to proceed. Learn to identify what's preventing your main thing from happening, and develop supporting goals as necessary in response.
Sidebar: Staying Current
It's not enough to do the initial data gathering well- you have to stay updated throughout the course of a project. As you proceed from A to B, you have to stay on top of the current situation. Why? Because things change. Your point A- your current state- keeps changing as you make progress. Along with that, problems may arise. Unanticipated difficulties emerge- even when the initial data gathering is done well. It's a leader's job to get the ground truth- to stay on top of the situation. How? Ask questions and get an eye-witness view of reality.
“Mr. Stevens did not talk much but asked questions—and could that man ask questions! . . . He found out everything I knew . . . He turned me inside out and shook out the last drop of information . . .”
Familiarity with details was stressed at every level, but obligatory for operating officers. “Intelligent management,” according to the familiar Hill dictum, “ . . . must be based on exact knowledge of facts. Guesswork will not do.”
President Theodore Roosevelt understood this better than most. He traveled to Panama during the canal's construction, and
He wished to see Panama at its absolute worst . . . He walked railroad ties in Culebra Cut, leaped ditches, splashed through work camps, made impromptu speeches in the driving rain. “You are doing the biggest thing of the kind that has ever been done,” he said, “and I wanted to see how you are doing it.”
Stay current- stay on top of the ever-changing point A. It's necessary if you plan to ever get to point B.
Conclusion
Want to succeed in any endeavor? First, know where you are today by gathering data
systematically,
thoroughly, and
objectively. Look at each task from a fresh perspective; don't let past experience or victories cloud your impressions. Once obtained, present the data simply, in a way that's easy to understand and remember.
Once you have your point A, and have a clear point B, plan your way from A to B. Appreciate that several supporting efforts may be necessary to enable your main effort to succeed. Learn to look for what's hindering the main effort, and adjust accordingly. Stay on top of the situation by asking questions of your people and maintain an exact knowledge of the facts by personally inspecting and involving yourself in the situation. If you do so, success will (likely) be yours.
