0:01 and where are you going? What do you want?
0:14 >> Hello and welcome to Business Lessons from the Military. I'm your host, Kevin Bemel, and I'm here every Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time to talk about military history, doctrine, and leadership practices. and then translate them into lessons that we can act on, that we can apply to our businesses and professional practices. So, today is the final episode of a four-part series that I've been doing on uh the work of Alfred
0:49 the Mayan um one of the best known naval strategists uh who really who ever lived. He wrote an enormously influential book interestingly enough called the influence of sea power upon history 1660 to 1783. The book was written in uh 1890 and it it synthesized roughly um I mean in theory a century of of naval warfare and commerce but um really extended back uh farther than
1:25 that. And it was a look at how uh the United States uh Navy and and commerce in the United States could essentially work together to strengthen the nation both uh militarily and economically. And so um today as as I mentioned a moment ago, this is going to be the last um episode in this series. We I've looked at five ideas uh from uh Mayan's book over the preceding three weeks and so
2:01 I'm going to look at five more today and and and wrap things up. So um you know previously I've talked about um such uh issues as geography creates opportunity, logistics are a strategic weapon and concentration beats dispersion. So all of these principles and and you can go back and watch the previous episodes on my YouTube channel. Uh just go to youtube.com/theway tow and and and see how this great uh naval
2:38 strategist how he's so relevant to doing business today. Many of you may have heard of Sun Sue who wrote the classic military doctrinal text, The Art of War. It's been almost essentially literally translated into a business text uh and is well known for that. So, I think it it's it's a shame that that other military texts haven't been treated the same way. And now that I'm talking about, I don't know, maybe I'll have to do that myself, right? Um let's see. is is um is the influence of
3:15 sea power upon uh upon history is it out of is it out of uh copyright? I think so. It's been over a hundred years 135 years since it was written. I'll have to give that some thought. Uh in in any event um I'm going to start with u um the first of the five uh final points which is leadership quality determines outcomes. So skilled leaders maximized national advantage and poor leaders squandered uh
3:51 what were oftentimes superior resources. So uh we can see this in in somebody like uh Horatio Nelson about whom I've I've done a show I've done an episode on this show where Nelson was an inspiring leader. He was a brilliant strategist and tactician. He was brave. Uh his his men loved serving under him. And so through an individual like Admiral
4:26 Nelson, national advantage was maximized. Um he wasn't just beloved by by his sailors, he was beloved by the English people in general. And and so to have that kind of inspir inspired leadership has a national impact beyond just the you know that particular military branch. The flip side is poor leaders squandered superior resources. So if we look at um let's see let's look at Pearl
5:03 Harbor. Pearl Harbor, which is probably the most notable uh defeat suffered by well, actually no, let's look at Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a better a better example, right? The United States clearly had superior resources, but poor leadership squandered that advantage. Now, one could, I think, cogently argue, well, the um the uh unequal warfare where we had the United States had tremendously
5:39 powerful conventional forces fighting against sort of, you know, terrorist bans. Um that that sort of unequal warfare. uh it it really um undermines the advantage of uh the um the superior resources. Well, only if the superior resources are used incorrectly, right? So, the United States has the ability to train and equip any kind of force that it that it wants. uh it may take it more
6:16 time to do to to equip a to train and equip a force to it, you know, to be able to respond effectively to this unequal warfare. Uh but but that's what that's what war and and the military are about. So to say to say that um well it was just that you know we we were fighting an enemy that didn't allow us to bring our superior resources to bear. That's not a correct excuse or a correct rationale. The rationale was the
6:52 leadership did not observe that and take that issue under investigation and figure out okay that being the case how do we fight this war successfully right and and there were things that were tried um but but none of them worked particularly well and then with the precipitous withdrawal um you know any any advantage, any chance at finding the right way to respond to the Taliban threat in Afghanistan was was lost.
7:29 Right? So that's that is first and foremost a matter of poor leadership and and I I was having a conversation with uh with a friend of mine yesterday. I don't want to say who he was because the people we were talking about would then know they were being talked about. that the the company for which he works is is not operating particularly well and there's a reason and it's because there's poor leadership throughout the com company and he kept giving me reasons that would sort of exculpate the
8:07 leaders of the company from responsibility and I kept saying I'm not saying they're horrible people I'm just saying they're not leading well in this situation and to suggest that they are is to mask over the root of the problems the company is having and therefore to essentially dismiss chances of success for the company. So there's a couple of factors, a couple of ways that this translates to
8:42 the business world. And one is the quality of leadership. And the one of the most important factors determining quality of leadership is their willingness to accept responsibility for the mistakes that they've made, for the quality of their leadership. A leader who is unwilling to accept that, okay, is an inferior leader. Full stop.
9:18 Okay. So, how we present our culpability as leaders to our team. Okay. That that's a separate issue. Okay? We don't have to go in front of them and and and do a struggle session. Oh, I'm inadequate. I'm this. I'm that. No, I'm not suggesting that at all. But what we have to do as leaders is evaluate the quality of our leadership, identify the places where it's lacking,
9:53 and then solve those lacks, fill in those gaps. It may be that we need to bring someone on board who has a skill that we lack and essentially hand that aspect over to that person. That may be something we have to do. That's superior leadership. Okay. I would venture to say that Admiral Nelson was probably not a particularly skilled uh logistician. Okay. But I would bet you that he had sailors, officers in his fleet who were
10:30 experts who he knew on whom he knew he could rely. That's what's important. And then he essentially followed their advice. Right? Now, of course, as the most senior commander, if they made a mistake, the eventual responsibility rests with him. Nonetheless, we need to give the broadest authority to act to those members of our team who are filling in our own weaknesses.
11:05 That's crucial. That's what good leadership is. It's recognizing our weaknesses and filling and backfilling them. Okay. So, that's that's one that's one aspect of superior leadership. Another is making sure there's leadership in depth. So, uh many years ago when I had my real estate company, I was asked to go up to Seattle and then Alaska to do a collateral review for a company. In this case, I was looking at their real estate. And one of the things I noticed about
11:41 this company which was looking to borrow at the time I think I think it was close to $200 million if I remember correctly. Okay. And that's a lot of money right now. Back then it was even more because we're talking 30 plus years ago. Okay. So none of the there was no depth of leadership in this company at all. the CEO of the company. He he had a a good handle on everything that was going on. However, he was an older man, not in the greatest of health, and if something had
12:17 happened to him, it's very likely the company would have fallen apart. And I passed that information along to the lender who had sent me uh to do the collateral review. And I said, I I I I know you're not asking me to point these kind of things out to you. I said, but I I feel obligated to let you know there is no depth of leadership here. There is no one who can backfill for the number one guy. Not even close. The other people weren't bad people. They're very nice
12:52 and they were excellent at saying yes sir, which by the way wasn't there. I I suspect it wasn't their fault that there was no depth of leadership. I think it was the number one guy's fault because he didn't want to be challenged. And that's fine, but I don't, you know, I wouldn't want to be lending $200 million to a company like that. And and in the event that along with some other issues made the lender pass and I know the I know another lender who did that made that loan and it it's it was part of putting them out of business. That's
13:28 how bad the situation was, right? So we need to have we need to fill in talent gaps and we need to have depth of leadership. Having qualified superior leaders more junior to us is not a threat to our leadership. It's a benefit to the organization. It should help us sleep better at night knowing if we get sick, we get injured that the organization will be able to continue. And by the way, if we're so insecure in
14:07 our ability that we don't want to have quality leaders who are junior to us, that's a that's our problem. We can't make that a problem for our organizations. Okay. So leadership quality determines outcomes. That's number one. Number two, institutional culture sustains power. So the the Royal Navy as a cultural institution had traditions that dated in some cases
14:42 for centuries. Okay? And those traditions permeated still to this day permeate the United States Navy. They they they reinforce discipline. They reinforce a sense of continuity in they they reinforce a sense of attachment to the institution. So to this day when I hear the blow of a Bzen's pipe, it takes me back not just to my days in the Navy, but it connects
15:19 me to centuries of naval history because the Bzens pipe was how um was part of the system of giving orders back in the day of of wooden ships, okay? in calling the crew to man the sails or man the capst stand or you know or calling them to grog or all of these naval traditions. Okay, some of which we don't do anymore. We don't issue grog on you know American uh ships any longer. Um more is the pity I think sometimes. Um
15:55 but but those those kinds of traditions, the uniforms that we wear, this this is an area where I think the United States Navy has done itself a tremendous disservice. So, um, this this is seems like it's in constant flux, but I know when I was assign right right before I was assigned to carrier airwing, uh, 14, um, the sort of um, regular shipboard, shipboard uniform for officers and chief
16:30 petty officers was changed from the khaki uniform that what what were called wash khakis that was worn even when my dad was in the Navy and from before that. It was my dad's favorite uniform. Uh it was my dad used to talk about how he would get his newly laundered khakis when they had starch in them and he'd put his arm through the sleeves and it would be like, you know, as as the sleeve, you know, as he pushed his way through the sleeve. If you've ever worn, you know, a you know, a wellstarchched garment, right? They were crisp. They looked
17:05 good. Right. So that uniform was replaced by what was derisively called blueberries. It was these this blue camouflaged uniform. It looked sloppy. It was uncomfortable, completely impractical for shipboard wear. And I remember I got to CAG 14 and the first thing I did was I bought my wash khakis and then the captain of the ship uh on which we deployed, the USS Ronald Reagan, decided he was going to institute the wearing of blueberries early and I never got to wear my wash
17:42 khakis offic you know on official duty. huge mistake on the part of the captain of the ship, on the part of the Navy, and and it was I mean, from a practical standpoint, if someone fell overboard in these blueberries, you would never see them, okay? They they you know, the idea of camouflaging yourself in the ocean when all we want to do is get you out of the drink, right? Absolutely crazily foolish, right? And and you say, "Okay, well, but that's just one little thing,
18:17 right?" But it's an attitude toward naval tradition that reflected badly on the institutional culture. And the Navy stumbled through all kinds of different iterations. They've never figured out that they just need to go back to what they were doing uh you know, in in 2009. right? That where you know again officers and and chief petty officers wore khakis and um petty officers and
18:52 sailors wore I think it was kind of a a blue uniform. Okay. And and the blue uniform wasn't particularly good. They need to go back to wearing, you know, dungarees and t-shirts, which was a great uniform. You you see it in in World War II movies. It was comfortable. They got more comfortable the more times you washed them, right? That's the nature of blue jeans, which is essentially what dungarees are, right? There was no reason to change that. There just no reason. Okay? Except that the Navy got it in its head that if we change this, you know, sailors are
19:27 going to enlist more frequently or more people are going to enlist and and they're going to be happier. No. Everything that's come since the dungarees and t-shirts, sailors haven't liked. Okay? It's part of a sailor's ethos to gripe. Okay, that's just how it is, especially on shipboard, right? So, it's it's crucial to maintain institutional culture because that's what sustains the the ethos, the sort of, you know, fighting spirit um of a navy. And the fact of the matter is
20:02 these institutions outlive every individual. Okay, this is one of the things I I've tried to explain to both sailors and and my civilian colleagues. The Navy essentially exists apart from any of her sailors, right? So when a sailor does something wrong, okay, that is that is the officer or sailor's responsibility. Okay, the Navy, this this institution
20:38 that now is over two centuries old, it's a noble institution that wants to fulfill its duty to serve and defend the United States of America. that sometimes the Navy is served poorly by officers and sailors is is not it's not that the Navy is bad, it's that the individuals are. Now, you could argue, well, the Navy hasn't trained them well enough. Okay, in some cases that's true. Okay.
21:15 But in many cases, it's that the person let their ego run away with them. They let their pro problems in their life capture them. Um and and they did something they shouldn't have done that they got lazy. Okay. Um while I would say the institutional culture of the Navy has uh has declined over time, okay, the strength of it, the quality of it, that's that's because the
21:50 the the officers primarily and and and in most cases the most senior officers, the admirals have allowed that to happen rather than maintain standards. That's a failing of those admirals who have in their hand the maintenance of the institutional culture. They have failed the Navy. The Navy wants to be great. She wants to serve with distinction. If her officers let her down, okay,
22:25 that is not really the fault of the Navy. That's the fault of the officers. It's the fault of the leadership, the national leadership that would would appoint that that would not appoint but select such admirals uh to put and put in their care this precious institution. Okay, I that may sound sentimental but I'm sentimental about my navy our navy. So from a business standpoint, okay, every business needs to develop a culture and hopefully it is a culture
23:00 that inspires people who work at that business to excel. Okay. Now I I I'm currently overseeing the operations of a company where for over two decades the culture of the organization was one of harshness. It did not encourage professional growth. Uh it did not encourage the people who work there to excel to build their skills. And it's really a shame because the people who were so loyal to
23:37 this business have did not have a chance to grow. Now, over the last two years that that I've been overseeing this business, they've had a lot more opportunity to grow, to expand what they're doing, to take on more responsibility, to have a part a a personal stake in the success or failure of the business. And it's been wonderful to watch these people blossom and and to work with them to build the kind of culture in which
24:14 everyone has an opportunity to thrive. Okay? That doesn't mean we don't work hard because we do. Okay? And it doesn't mean that we're we don't hold ourselves accountable for mistakes. We do. That's part of the culture too. Okay? But the dominant aspect of the culture and and a lot of it in in my case because being in the Navy was such a formative period for me and unlike my first real estate company uh where I I didn't have full-time employees in that
24:50 sort of thing very for very long. I really take a lot from what I learned in the Navy in terms of working within an organization and bring that to this particular company uh for which I'm responsible and to to because that that that institutional culture and how it supports us as a team, how it helps us do quality work for our clients and customers, right? I that's in in many cases I've taken
25:26 directly from my time in the United States Navy. Okay. And you know if if we have a strong culture so it will allow our people to to really build a great business and it will it will sustain a company beyond its founders. Whereas we have if we have a weak culture, it creates a great deal of fragility. And in fact, when I took over this business, it it it was touch and
26:03 go. It was it was touchandgo as to whether it was going to survive because the culture was borderline abusive. And the people who worked at this company, no one could have blamed them if when the owner of the company died, they had just jumped ship basically and said, "Okay, I'm done with this, right?" And so it was incumbent upon me to come in and very quickly demonstrate to them that the institutional culture was going to change. Okay? All right. Public support enables long-term
26:40 strategy. This is number three. Okay. So, naval expansion requires political backing. So, whether we're talking about the Royal Navy or the United States Navy or for that matter any Navy, a navy is expensive. We have to build ships. We have to man ships. We have to supply ships. None of that is inexpensive. It all costs a lot of money. And whether we're talking about building, you know, squarerigged wooden ships in the 19th century and before, or whether we're
27:16 talking about building steel hold ships now, or or composite um u material ships now, there's no such thing as an inexpensive navy. This was for a long time the reason why the United States Navy remained relatively small because there wasn't a lot of public support for uh building and manning a large navy. It wasn't until really around the time of the Civil War when the United States uh when the Union needed to blockade the Confederacy that
27:52 it became uh obvious that a a uh you know a larger navy was was necessary and that that the cost of it uh would was was would be well spent. So um but it needs it needs both political support from in this case national leaders but it also requires popular support support from the people in a c in a country like England or the United States where these are essentially republican small R
28:27 republican governments right they're representative governments so if the pe if the just the you know citizens of the country or the the subjects in the case of Great Britain of the country won't support a navy won't expect won't support a larger navy the it's going to be difficult to raise the money to build and maintain it right and so um part of what a navy has to do is demonstrate its value right this is why someone like a Horatio Nelson was so
29:04 important to the Royal Navy's success to have this this uh superb charismatic officer in the news doing great things for England or for Great Britain caused the average person to take pride in the Royal Navy. This is why in the United States an officer like John Paul Jones, David Farragut um you know and then and then moving into you know uh World War II Nimttz uh Chester Nimmitz and um um
29:41 Lehey I'm I'm going up on Lehey's first name. All of these great naval leaders it's why they were so important. They they captured the public's imagination. They accomplished great things for the country and they engendered the support of the American people of in the case of uh Great Britain of of the people of Great Britain. Okay? And and so this is what this is what is necessary for sustained investment. Okay? And you can look over
30:17 the history of the United States. You can see that support for the military kind of waxes and wanes politically, okay, as politicians are reading the sort of temperament of of the citizenry. But it it's interesting. I think the citizenry it waxes and wanes far less with the average citizen. So uh you know sort of the the wisdom of the masses so to speak I I think is is you know reliable here. Okay. So with a business then we need to build uh support
30:57 among the public. Now who is the public in a business? It it's not necessarily the entire public the way it is with with with a navy. Okay. you you've heard this term stakeholders before and I I think it gets both underused and oh I'm sorry overused and misused where I in in how it's applied to uh running a company you you hear about you know stakeholder capitalism well uh that that's um I I I I don't I don't find any validity in in that concept what I find
31:36 The where I do find validity is recognizing that for a company to um to win, if you will, it needs to have a a long-term strategy to to retain the support of the of the people who work at the company so that they feel they're being treated well and and they're being and and and they they they have um they're motivated ated to work for the company. They're given opportunities for professional growth. Okay. Um my friend Bill and I
32:13 talk about this, you know, from time to time. If a company is afraid of its people growing so much that they're going to leave the company, that's a really poor attitude. Okay. The the greatest thing a company can be is one where people go and they learn and they grow and they move on to even, you know, better opportunities than there are at the company that that nurtured them because they're almost for sure going to feel a connection back to that company. And so
32:50 that company's influence now expands throughout the business world. Okay, that's just that's just how it works. So, we want to inspire uh loyalty in our people, but a broader loyalty where where they know that what we what we want always is the best for them, even if that means they have to move on to find, you know, the next opportunity that'll allow them to grow. Sometimes you know we just we we just there's a limit to what we can offer but we should
33:25 keep training our people so that they outgrow us basically. Okay. So that's what we that's the kind of support that's what we can do to engender that kind of the the kind of rockolid support from our employees. We want the same kind of relationship with our clients and customers. We want the same kind of relationship or the same I should not same kind same quality of relationship with our clients and customers. The same quality of relationship with our suppliers with our vendors with the people who in who provide us with
34:01 insurance with um um you know our our professionals who who handle uh tax compliance who help us deal with legal issues. Okay. would that we could have that same kind of relationship with government officials who are who you know have the the responsibility to see that laws and regulations are enforced. That that may be tougher particularly in a jurisdiction like California where it seems like those relationships are are many times fraught. Okay. But we we we it should be part of our institutional
34:37 culture to go back to number two to create strong abiding mutually supportive relationships with everyone with whom the company deals. Okay. As a long-term strategy for the success of the company. Okay. Number four, strategic patience wins wars. So, um when when we we look at uh how navies win wars, while the sort
35:17 of most gallant aspects of naval warfare uh oftent times are the, you know, sort of single ship, you know, the single ship on ship battles that were sometimes fought in the 19th century uh or you know something like the Battle of Midway which was a decisive American victory during World War II in the Pacific theater and and probably was the turning point in that theater of operations. Okay. The reality is the
35:52 reason the United States won World War II was because uh it had endurance which allowed it to be patient. Okay? Because the United States had to learn how to fight effectively in the Pacific. Okay? It wasn't knowledge that the United States Navy had. They had theory, but theory oftentimes doesn't play out the way planners think it will when actual operations commence. Okay? And so that
36:28 had to be figured out. Now it's it's a it's a difficult equation because if one is in a war, okay, which means among other things that people are dying, being killed. So the America America Americans don't have a whole lot of patience for watching um the the what you know body counts deal uh mount right they don't like to see that having said that it it's incumbent upon leaders to explain why patience is required and indeed in
37:06 any kind of sustained military operation that is the most crucial task for civilian leadership is to explain why we civilians, okay, need to be patient to give a military strategy the time required for it to be successful, right? So, you know, we saw in the first Gulf War, right, where we're talking about the whole shock and awe thing, like, wow, we could win a victory really quickly. Well, yes and no. Certainly the military
37:41 portion of that campaign went off quickly and well, but the longer term war for turning um for turning the tide of how things were happening in that area of the world. Uh there was not sufficient patience for it. Uh and there were a lot of other problems by the way as well, right? Same thing happened in Afghanistan. So people were as asked to be patient and yet there didn't seem to be a coherent way a coherent strategy for uh
38:18 for really winning true victory there. So time favors disciplined powers. Powers who are disciplined and committed to figuring out the way to achieve victory. Okay. So patience in a vacuum is is is not sustainable. Patience in the face of failure after failure is also not sustainable. What what we need what militaries need to do
38:53 and and and civilian leadership who who control them need to do is create the uh the atmosphere for patients while working very very hard to make the changes that need to be made to adapt to the current military situation that will bring victory uh as quickly as possible. possible. Those are both both of those things can be true at the same time. So from a business standpoint, when we talk
39:28 about strategic patience, really what we what we're looking at is creating a platform for sustainable growth and that beats rapid expansion. So last week a colleague of mine uh asked me to attend a meeting with somebody that that he knew. I I knew the person as well, you know, kind of on an acquaintance level and the person with whom we were meeting was counseling us to like really ramp up and go for, you know, very rapid growth because, you know, he had been
40:04 successful in doing that with with his business. And I said to him, I I'm not looking for that kind of rapid growth. That's as likely to put me out of business as it is to make me a lot of money because the kind of work that I do requires close, strong relationships with all of the people with whom I'm involved. And so I'm much better off having a measured sustainable path toward expansion. Okay? rather than trying to get a whole bunch of clients that then I try and take care of and in
40:40 doing so make make a lot of mistakes and then you know they they don't want to do business with me anymore. Okay. So different businesses have different paths to expansion. Now for his business because he's part of a huge organization. Okay. All he's responsible for in in actuality is being in touch with the clients. Everything else happens in the background. Okay? But that's not how my business works. So I I don't turn around and and have a big
41:15 team back here. I build those teams and I have to build them um um uh individually on a bespoke nature to use a a clothing term. their their bespoke teams for each client to make sure that that things are working as efficiently as possible and to make sure that the client's goals are being met and different people have different goals. Right? So what I do is too diverse to have you know to to
41:51 assume any particular client's goals. Okay. So sustainable growth typically beats rapid expansion number one or part part A and part B endurance is a competitive weapon. So our ability to continue operating through economic vicissitudes, ups, downs, uh shocks in the market, this all the sort of craziness that goes on in business, our ability to endure is what will
42:29 allow us to be triumphant over the long term. Okay? And strategic patience is part of that. Okay, we can't let our desire for growth outpace what what will allow us to sustain and build a business on a firm foundation. Okay. Finally, number five, decline comes from complacency, not competition. So it's I think
43:04 a misnomer that uh that military defeat comes from competition comes from a you know a a better stronger military so to speak. a battle may be won on that basis where you know we're you know the the other side is just much stronger than we are. Okay. But it's really complacency that delivers
43:40 the ultimate defeat. Okay. So if we look at how close uh things actually were for the United States at the beginning of World War II, um we had we had let the army and navy shrink to a very small size after World War I. Okay. We were illquipped to deal with any kind of sustained uh milit ground and and sea-based operations. That's that was the choice that American
44:16 leadership made in the interwar years. And you know, people didn't object and the American people didn't object. Okay? They were on some level maybe a little too strong a word traumatized by what happened in World War I. But as a result, okay, we lost a a a huge battle in Pearl Harbor. And that sort of awakened us out of our stuper and out of our com out of our complacency and and we we realized we had to reverse
44:53 the decline. Okay, which is if we had lost World War II, it wouldn't have been because of the competition. It would have it would have been essentially a self-inflicted wound because we had let our military and n our army and navy decline so badly. Okay. So militaries need to be constantly adapting in order to keep pace with with the reality of what's going on geopolitically. Okay. Now I have I have mixed feelings about some
45:29 of these issues as they impact the United States Navy. So the idea of unmanned ships, you know, ships that don't have sailors on them, it just it's just not the Navy that I know. The idea of unmanned aircraft replacing pilots and fighter jets and tanker jets and um you know all the other platforms that that you know flew as part of the airwing when I was the chaplain there. It it it makes me frankly sad to think that there may very well be a day within
46:05 my lifetime that such things will go away and and we won't have the um the com camaraderie of the ready room and and and you know the the kind of camaraderie we we had in the uh uh um in the ward room that where where the officers ate their meals. Um, but the that's not the point of the United States Navy. The point of the United States Navy is to defend and support the interests of the United States of America. And so, how do we do that most
46:43 effectively and with the least loss of human life? Right? And the reality is that if if if we can fly unmanned aircraft as effectively or more effectively than manned aircraft, then we should. Um you look at how how ships are built today and and and how they look. They're not nearly as graceful as ships in during world wars one and two. They just don't have to my eye anyway the kind of beauty and sleekness that those ship have. they look kind of stodgy in some cases and and all of
47:20 that. But the reality is that as as uh radar deception technology advances, as how ships are used changes, and all of that means the form of the ships have to change as well. And utility has to be the guiding factor, not the beauty of of a ship. And you know, it's sad for those of us who knew a different Navy, but um we we do have to adapt. The Navy has to adapt to
47:56 remain relevant in fulfilling its duty to the nation, right? And so and and often times what happens is a Navy is so successful that leadership again becomes kind of complacent like we've been so successful we don't need to change anything. No, that's not true. Okay. Just because we've been successful in the past doesn't mean we'll be successful in the future. Those are two different time frames, right? And it's the responsibility of leadership especially the most senior leadership in the case of an the Navy and admirals to
48:33 make sure um that adaptation does not lag behind reality. Okay. And to make that case to civilian leadership and to the American people. So the same thing happens in businesses. So successful businesses often breed blind spots. Okay? we're so successful, we don't see that we're lagging behind the reality of of the marketplace. So, I think Walmart is is kind of a good example, right? How did
49:08 Amazon become become become so huge a part of retail sales when Walmart was the largest retailer I think in the world, certainly in this country, right? And it's because I think they were blinded by their success. They didn't see what the internet meant in terms of better serving retail customers. Okay? And so because of that, you know, they that was a a factor of decline. The decline came through
49:44 complacency. It wasn't as if somehow Amazon, you know, beat up Walmart. They didn't. Amazon just worked to be successful. Walmart was complacent. And so Amazon overtook them. And it took Walmart a long time to realize the predicament in which they were and to start innovating again and start building up their online business, etc. And it's it's been a a rough situation for Walmart. Now they're
50:20 finally, I think, you know, doing well and they've become somewhat of a formidable competitor to to Amazon. Okay. But it's it's the problem was Walmart's not Amazon's. Okay. And you can see how these how various ones of these issues I brought up today are interrelated. There was a leadership problem I would appear at at Walmart that didn't see that they were being complacent. So the lack of of of
50:56 qualified enough leaders there caused them to go into a decline primarily from complacency or from lack of vision. Okay. not necessarily exactly the same thing but related, right? So, as a result, they lost some of their public support because customers went and and and started shopping on Amazon, right? So all of these issues interplay and they're part of a larger the larger picture of which especially senior
51:33 leadership needs to stay aware and and that is in the end the lesson of Alfred theer Mayan in in his great book the the um the uh history of sea um the influence of sea power upon on history. No single factor is crucial. It's all these factors working together that keep a navy strong and allow it to work with the commercial aspects of a country to make that country great.
52:12 Okay. So, I've talked about 20 issues over the last four weeks. All of these issues work together. I'm not saying, by the way, that my list is exhaustive. I I I brought the ones that I thought would be most interesting for you to hear. But no issue, again, no issue in isolation is so crucial that it overarches all the others. It's how these issues work together. Okay? They're not all necessarily of equal importance. Quality of leadership is among the most
52:49 important because it's within leadership's responsibility and hopefully ability to deal with maintaining public support to combat complacency. Okay? So, as you look at your businesses, as you look at the various issues that I've raised over the last four weeks, I encourage you to think of how they can work in concert to improve how your business operates. So, I thank you very much for joining me today. Got some live viewers. Always terrific to see you. And if you have any
53:25 questions, comments, criticisms, etc., Links to the links to my social media will be in the show notes. I invite you to post them. And let's see, uh, tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time is my show, People Making Money. So, I hope you'll join me for that. And, uh, every other Thursday is my show, Jiggers's Place, at 5:00 PM Pacific time. We have a cocktail and a smoosh. So, as those come up, I hope you'll join me for those as well. And then of course next week,
54:00 full slate of shows. So I thank you again very much for joining me. I hope you enjoyed this series. I'm planning on doing more series serieses series um for business lessons from the military because I think they help us develop an overall better uh outlook and strategy for our companies. So um looking forward to doing more of this in in the weeks to come. So, thanks again for joining me. Wishing you a wonderful rest of the day and signing off as I always do. Marie darling, you are my bell. Courage at all
54:35 times, my friends.