What Trump’s Tariffs Reveal About Innovation

/in , , , , , , /by

Trump’s tariffs and Captain Tom Bostick’s battlefield strategy illustrate two contrasting approaches to innovation.

A large enemy force tried to overrun our small outpost near Kamu, Afghanistan. The outpost was deep in a glacier-cut mountain valley. The enemy fired at the outpost from across the river, trying to fix our attention, while a strike force moved from the southwest.

The commander, Captain Tom Bostick, deployed scouts who discovered the attacking force. Tom set an ambush and annihilated them before turning his attention across the river.

He thought the enemy had their command post in a mountain cave overlooking the outpost. He directed 30mm cannon fire from the A-10 Warthog to the cliff face. “They are shooting above us,” the enemy commander said over the walkie-talkie, which Tom’s interpreter monitored.

Tom directed the aircraft to fire higher up. “They are shooting below us,” announced the excited voice. Tom and the A-10 pilot had the enemy bracketed. The pilot spotted the cave, spewing 30mm into it while his wingman lined up a 500lb bomb. 

“Pray for us,” was the enemy’s last transmission.

Tom used reconnaissance by fire to reveal the enemy’s location before dropping the remaining 500lb bomb. 

Trump’s Tariff Policy: The Opposite Approach

President Trump’s tariff policy takes the opposite approach. Massive Liberation Day tariffs roiled markets. The President paused them, then imposed more. The exceptions and exemptions seem to roll out daily. 

There are excellent reasons to impose tariffs. The big strike and chaotic back-and-forth create an impression of incompetence, but everything may work out.

The examples illustrate two approaches to innovation. Tom’s approach was to use small bullets to test the market, so to speak, before dropping the big bomb.

President Trump’s tariff policy drops the big bomb first and adjusts based on the fallout.

Which approach is better for your business?

P.S. Innovation is one of the many topics we can explore on an adventure offsite for your company. These offsites at national parks and historic battlefields open minds and strengthen trust because you are in the fresh air, experiencing awe, and creating shared visual models that propel your business forward.

Sound interesting? Let’s have a strategy call to see if it’s right for you.

Radical Government Change in the U.S.: Vital Lessons

/in , , , , , /by

Here are four lessons leaders and decision-makers can learn from radical government change in the U.S.

Government reform is getting a lot of attention in the United States, so I asked my chatbot to come up with historical examples and the lessons.

Substantive change in government or business always encounters resistance. Those who bellyache about change benefit from the status quo. That doesn’t mean they are wrong in claiming the cure is worse than the illness. 

Successful reforms exhibit a clear idea that has leadership backing, constituent buy-in, and accountability. 

Success Stories: Well-Designed and Enduring Reforms

  • The U.S. Constitution (1787-1789) – The shift from the weak Articles of Confederation to a strong federal government was a masterclass in leadership, negotiation, and institutional design. By balancing power, protecting rights, and ensuring adaptability, the Founding Fathers laid a foundation that has endured for over two centuries.
  • The New Deal (1930s-1940s) – Facing the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented sweeping economic reforms, including Social Security, banking regulations, and public works programs. This transformation succeeded due to strong public support, flexible execution, and pragmatic coalition-building.
  • The Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1970s) – Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson pushed for legal and cultural change, culminating in the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965). Federal enforcement, bipartisan backing, and grassroots activism ensured these reforms had a lasting impact.
  • Reagan’s Economic Reforms (1980s) – President Ronald Reagan implemented tax cuts, deregulation, and a pro-business agenda, which led to economic growth and a shift toward free-market policies. His administration built strong coalitions with business leaders and conservatives, ensuring long-term impact. 

Mixed and Failed Reforms: Where Leadership Fell Short

  • Reconstruction (1865-1877) – After the Civil War, the U.S. attempted to rebuild the South and integrate newly freed Black Americans into society. Despite constitutional amendments granting rights, weak enforcement allowed Jim Crow laws to reverse much of the progress. 
  • The War on Poverty & Great Society (1960s-1970s) – President Lyndon B. Johnson’s ambitious programs introduced Medicare, Medicaid, and expanded welfare. While these initiatives provided significant social benefits, economic strains, moral hazards, and unintended consequences revealed the challenge of sustaining large-scale government interventions.
  • The Patriot Act & Homeland Security Expansion (2001-Present) – After 9/11, the U.S. government expanded surveillance, security agencies, and anti-terror laws. While these changes enhanced national security, they also sparked concerns over civil liberties and privacy, eroding public trust.

Key Takeaways for Leaders Driving Change

  1. Simplicity is vital. People need a clear understanding of what you want to do and how you plan to get there. Test simplicity by having people explain the idea in their own words. Simplistic, by contrast, is slogan-deep. The successful reforms sought clear, simple outcomes that people wanted and could grasp how to get there. 
  2. Leadership capital counts. You have to champion the reform and talk about it daily. Say it once and people will listen, say it twice and they’ll wait to see if you are serious. Say it 20 times and model the reforms, and people will know your commitment.
  3. Buy-in is crucial. In addition to simple clarity, people need to believe the reforms will leave them better off and have confidence they will work. Finger-wagging elites lecturing “this is for your own good” don’t work, especially when they model do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, because people will conclude they are getting screwed. Half-baked ideas, complicated explanations, and low transparency erode confidence. 
  4. Self-correcting mechanisms strengthen accountability. A radical reformer’s tendency is to overreach. Most inflate their mandate and create backlash. Moving fast and breaking things sounds funky as long as you don’t have to clean up the mess. Clean-up tends to re-create the previous system because that’s what people know. Checks and balances sustain transparency and accountability. 

Successful change is rooted in clarity, leadership capital, buy-in, and accountability. Get these factors on your side, and you will create lasting reform that strengthens the common good.  Do you want to further discuss how to drive successful change in your organization? Schedule a call with me.

The Two Questions That Improve Your Upstream Thinking

/in , , , , /by

Explore the importance of upstream thinking in navigating crises and anticipating future challenges.

I posted on this topic after the attempt on former President Trump’s life at a Pennsylvania rally, and other failures in anticipatory (upstream) thinking keep hitting the news. The fallout at Delta Air Lines after the abortive CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm, update and the Trump campaign’s flailing after President Biden dropped out of the race are among the latest examples of failures to think ahead. Vice President Harris’ deft exploitation of Biden’s withdrawal shows the power of anticipatory thinking.

To CrowdStrike’s credit, the CEO took responsibility for the error and began corrective and remedial action. Most airlines recovered quickly, but Delta struggled to right the ship over a week later and plans to sue CrowdStrike. 

Meanwhile, the Democratic party’s ouster of President Biden from the 2024 race was a slow-motion strike that anyone could see coming after his disastrous June 27th debate. The only ones who seemed surprised were Biden’s inner circle and the entire Trump campaign, both high on their own supply.    

The Trump campaign assumed the most advantageous future—that a deteriorating Biden would stay in the race and stumble to defeat. Wrongfooted by Biden’s ouster and the rapid coronation of Vice President Harris, the Trump campaign remains unable to adapt. 

Vice President Harris, meanwhile, anticipated and exploited the opportunity created by Biden’s withdrawal, rapidly consolidating support for her candidacy. Had she been content with reactive thinking, she would likely have faced a bruising primary.

Anticipatory Thinking Begins with Two Questions: What If and How Would

“What if” prompts people to consider alternative scenarios. What if this update contains a bug? What if our systems go down for several hours? What if Biden steps aside? 

“How would” encourages people to think about the actions to take in the alternative scenarios. How would we prevent a bad update from damaging our customers and reputation, for example, might have prompted more vigorous testing from CrowdStrike (preventive action). 

How would we motivate companies to switch, on the other hand, might nudge Apple to “promoting action” that highlights most viruses are built for PCs and not Macs, and “exploiting action” that subtly invites people frustrated by the abortive update to switch systems.

How would we adjust our strategy if Biden steps down and Vice President Harris replaces him should have been a conversation within Team Trump. 

Holding an upstream or anticipatory discussion quarterly using what if and how would helps you prevent problems from arising, prepare contingencies if they do (like getting the proper insurance and building resilience in your systems), promote ways to increase market share, and exploit fleeting opportunities.
Would you like someone to facilitate this discussion? Getting outside support for these discussions can boost their effectiveness, and I’d be delighted to help you think through the best approach for your company. Book a call.

Analyzing the Downstream and Upstream Actions of Secret Service Agents in Protecting Trump

/in , , , , , , /by

Secret Service breakdown at Trump rally shows the importance of upstream thinking.

I’m appalled by the assassination attempt on former President Trump, and I cannot help but think the violent rhetoric that’s entered our political discourse played a role. I hope people think more carefully before characterizing their opponents in existential terms.

As we get some distance from the event, I wanted to highlight the bravery of the Secret Service agents who did as they trained and protected Trump with their lives. The following bullet, had it been fired, would have hit one of them, wounding or possibly killing them. Thank goodness that did not happen. 

Their actions in response to the event were classic examples of corrective (killing the assailant) and remedial action (protecting Trump). These are downstream actions – reactions to something that already occurred. 

How was someone able to climb up a nearby building with a firearm and set up a firing position without being challenged or interdicted before being able to shoot? People reportedly noticed the assailant and tried to warn authorities for many minutes beforehand.  

Upstream vs. Downstream Thinking

The event suggests the Secret Service’s upstream action was inadequate. Some upstream actions avert adverse events or provide contingencies, while others promote or exploit positive possibilities. 

Preventive action, for example, is designed to prevent something from happening, like providing people with steps to safeguard campfires so they don’t become forest fires. A simple line-of-site tool could show the places with direct sites to the podium so you could place security or surveillance up to a certain distance. Drones could patrol overhead, and counter-drones could keep out intruders. Having security personnel easily identifiable also provides deterrence. 

Contingent actions, which you use to generate options in case a shooter emerges, could include easy reporting protocols (like sports stadiums use for people to report bad behavior), information sharing, and quick reaction forces. I hope an investigation gets to the ground truth and the Secret Service uses the experience to prevent another such attempt.

The takeaway for your business is to create a habit of upstream thinking—crisis prevention is less dramatic than crisis response and almost always less expensive. 

Fortunately, upstream thinking is a learnable skill that I can help you develop. It positions you to reduce risks and exploit favorable opportunities, putting you a step ahead of everyone else. Book a call with me to discuss ways to use upstream thinking.