The WAY to WOW Shows
The 24-Episode Campaign: Strategy 7
March 17, 2026
Automatically generated from YouTube captions; names and wording may contain errors.

[0:01] Who are you [music] and where are you going? What do you want? Hello and welcome to Business Lessons from the Military. I'm your host, Kevin Deml, and I'm here every Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time to talk about military history, doctrine, and leadership practices. and then distill from them lessons that we can apply to our businesses and professional practices. So today I'm continuing my

[0:38] the uh 24 episode campaign that I started uh I think it's I want to say seven episodes ago. I think this is episode eight if I remember correctly. Let's see. Uh no this is episode seven. So I started six episodes ago. And what I've done is I've I've taken strategy doctrine uh or I've taken doctrine across all of the BR service branches and combined it into this 24 episode program. [snorts] We're first examining

[1:14] strategy. Um we have today and next week are the two final uh shows on strategy and then we're going to move on from there to other topics within military doctrine. [snorts] So today I'm going to be talking about overconfidence as a strategic threat.

[1:34] >> [snorts]

[1:35] >> So, uh, if you've been if you've been following the, uh, the war in Iran, [snorts] uh, then you might be thinking this is kind of a timely topic. It, it, it may be. Um, there's an awful lot of, uh, of sort of triumphal um, talk going on. Um, it appears to be justified. Uh but you know who who who knows? I mean um it's very difficult to

[2:10] to report accurately on military actions, especially sustained military actions. Um, it seems pretty obvious that Israel has assets, people, human intelligence assets in Iran itself, as well as the Iranian opposition is doing as much as it can to get information out of Iran to the larger world. However, you know, it's somewhat selective and you know, just because this information is coming out doesn't necessarily mean that it is reflective

[2:46] of the totality of what's going on in the country. Uh a as well uh you know there there are questions about um how long uh Israel and the United States can maintain combat operations. it appears [snorts] that um that munitions and such are going to hold out as long as they need to. Um but but again, [clears throat] these are these are all determined will be determined as as the war continues. And so one of the things that I think

[3:22] both the United States and Israel needs to guard against is becoming overconfident. Uh there is nothing like a regime being in its death throws to throw a monkey wrench into plans. Uh one of the best examples from the last century is um um um the battle of the bulge uh in the Ardens forest. So, it was widely thought that Nazi Germany was on its last legs

[4:00] and yet it still managed to mount what was a major a major um u offensive effort and [clears throat] it came reasonably close to succeeding. It certainly set the allies back and um you know it it it it was a bold move um by by Adolf Hitler. Uh fortunately it did not pay off fortunately for the allies but um there was uh

[4:37] there again there was kind of a sense of triumphalism going on and uh um the the allies I think uh with the possible exception of uh General George Patton were were I think somewhat in its thr. It it it's it's interesting that uh um when Patton was the one who was able to respond most quickly to the threat posed by the Battle of the Bulge and one of the reasons was is is he had it firmly implanted in his mind that the allies

[5:12] could still lose the war even at that late date. He did not as as arrogant as he was he did not underestimate uh not the Nazi German armed forces and this is a problem too in business as as we're going to discuss. So corporate hubris um and um often leads to much bigger problems um than weakness does. Um because the

[5:47] because arrogance and the inability to cogently analyze a situation and respond uh as necessary is can be absolutely deadly to to a business and we've seen many examples of this and I'll talk about some of those as we as we move on on into today's show. So, [clears throat and cough] excuse me. Strength can certainly uh create uh well, not really create discipline, but strength um can can

[6:27] undergard discipline, but it can also create blindness. And and that's sort of the key issue here is as a particular company perhaps becomes ever more dominant in the marketplace. That strength can lead it to become more disciplined as as its success grows. But it can also it can also create a kind of arrogance so that it's it stops

[7:04] seeing clearly uh what it needs to do to continue to build on its success. So [clears throat] history shows that organizations [snorts] often fail not because they lack capability but because success convinces their leaders that the rules of the marketplace, the rules of good business no longer apply to them. And so while in strategy confidence is necessary, overconfidence can end up being lethal. [snorts] And so

[7:42] we're going to look at how arrogance uh distorts judgment. It it suppresses dissent and it causes leader to to ignore risks that should have been obvious. So from a military standpoint um there there is a there is a tremendous strategic risk in hubris. So uh- so within military doctrine, we see overconfidence as as being kind of a recurring theme um that that leads to

[8:18] strategic failure. So common symptoms of overconfidence are underestimating the enemy, ignoring logistical limits, uh expanding objectives beyond capabilities, and dismissing intelligence that um contradicts the assumptions of leadership. And so you you can have a very strong military force um but it ends up being defeated not by a superior enemy but by its own

[8:54] inflated unrealistic expectations. Okay. So I talked about um uh um um the battle of the bulge a moment ago. Um, another example from from World War II is Operation Barbar Roa. So, this is what Nazi Germany called its attack of the Soviet Union in 1941. It was and I believe remains today the largest land invasion in history. So, at

[9:34] the time, Germany was coming off of astonishing victories. uh through Western Europe. It had swept through the low countries and into France and defeated them. Um people were this was after it had uh it had taken over Poland and and and of course before that uh Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary. So um uh you know victory after victory after victory in first central Europe and then into western Europe the the Nazi regime just

[10:11] it looked undefeable and initially Hitler had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union but um his his contempt of what he called the Slavic peoples of which he considered the Russians one of them and his contempt for communism which he saw a threat as a threat to his own socialist type rule uh where everything was essentially devoted to to the state

[10:47] led him to decide to break the uh the pact with the Soviet Union and attack in 1941. So, um having had the you know having his these uh um highly vetted uh the highly vetted military with um the sort of blitz blit having essentially uh perfected the blitz style of warfare. Um he you know I think Hitler really suffered from this you know this

[11:23] overconfidence to say the least. Um and and it was buoied by again the the the operational momentum he had had across Europe and the fact that he really had superior battlefield tactics. So if one keeps in mind that World War I was essentially a static warfare after not you know very shortly after the war began. So this kind of highly maneuverable rapid paced military action

[12:00] was just not something for which the allies were prepared or at least the European allies were prepared and Germany was and hence Germany was just able to to decimate them [snorts] and it took the United States getting into the war and in particular uh the the military knowledge and skill of General Patton, who had realized early on that the type of tactics he he had he had basically come to the same conclusion that that Nazi

[12:35] Germany did, that mobilized warfare was going to make stationary defenses absolutely obsolete. And so despite all of these advantages though, Operation Barbar Roa was was just colossally unsuccessful. Um, and it wasn't because Germany lacked strength. Um, I think it was largely because German leadership, especially Adolf Hitler, was convinced that victory was inevitable and essentially the, you

[13:13] know, the Third Reich, as it was known as, was just going to dominate no matter what it did. So, what miscalculations were made? Well, first of all, uh, Germany underestimated the Soviet Union's industrial capacity. So, initially the United after the break with, uh, with Germany, um, the United States, the great arsenal of democracy as it was known, uh, started supplying the Soviet Union with material. Um and and despite the predations of the Battle

[13:50] of the Atlantic, a lot of a lot of cargo ships got through through the sort of northern route to uh to the Soviet Union. And so, initially, the United States was able to help keep the Soviet Union in the war by supplying it with with guns and tanks, etc., while the Soviet Union was able to gear up its own industrial capacity. uh as well. I think that the the the German general general staff just underestimated the

[14:25] tremendous logistical challenges uh that that they faced as as they moved ever farther east across this vast territory and and they they could not keep their armies properly supplied. They also assumed that as had previously been the case, victory over the Soviet Union uh would be rapid and that it the that the Eastern Front war would be over before winter. Now, this was Napoleon's classic mistake when he invaded Russia uh back in the early

[15:02] 19th century. his armies bogged down because they got caught in the Russian winter and Napoleon was defeated. That that the German general staff and Hitler did not take that lesson to heart again shows the kind of arrogance um that that they that they had in thinking that you know this example of warfare was not going to apply to them. and [snorts] and then finally they dismissed intelligence that contradicted their optimistic assumptions. Um

[15:37] the one thing that the Soviet Union had um in abundance compared to Nazi Germany was people. They could they could just keep throwing soldiers into the fray. They were not particularly well-trained. They were not particularly well uh equipped. Uh but you know they but the Soviet Union could keep throwing men and even women into battle faster than the not than the Nazi army Nazi German armies could kill them. And in the end what what you know was assumed by Nazi

[16:13] Germany to be a key component of of the victorious Third Reich became just an absolute strategic uh catastrophe. So this this this overconfidence it becomes dangerous um because past because leaders believe that past victories essentially entitle them to future victories and of course that is not true. Um we we we we used to hear this all the time in the advertisement for securities and such. You know uh past re

[16:48] past results are not indicative of or or past experience is not indicative of future results right the the the past is is not determinative. The past is the past. Um and um leaders then also believe that their organization is is uniquely capable and and again the the sort of arrogance that comes from that is is really astonishing. Um, I think this is, you know, one of the things that, uh, the United States and Israel need to

[17:23] be careful about in the Iran war is while certainly, um, for example, the US and Israeli air forces are absolutely dominant, uh, that doesn't mean that there aren't ways for Iran to continue to keep fighting, right? And so um just because uh a military has a unique capability or an absolutely dominant capability in one area does not mean that that they will necessarily succeed. Okay. Uh it appears that you know the

[18:00] the combat operations are going well. Uh but you know if we look at World War II, there was a a a large number of people who thought that strategic bombing uh would win the war against against the Axis and it did not. I mean that's just the bottom line. Strategic the the the impact of strategic bombing on the war in Europe is, you know, debatable at the very best. It's it's likely that it it it had, you know, an effect at the margins. Um, but

[18:37] it was never going to bring about uh full victory without without ground forces. And now, you know, our our ability to bomb from the air today is is much better than it was 75 years ago, 80 years ago, World War II. uh and and you know the ability to do targeted strikes on leadership and and and take out leaders was not a capability that that the United States and its allies had in World War II. So different capabilities may mean a different you

[19:14] know a different um success metric. Um but I think that you know we we we need you know leaders need to exercise some humility in in considering their unique the unique capabilities of their militaries and for that matter their companies. So, um, there's a tendency for leaders to to essentially assert that their critics lack vision and and it's it's a lack of vision that cause that causes them to uh to counsel restraint or to

[19:50] highlight risks uh that the leadership doesn't want to hear about. Um, but that's not necessarily the case. Um, someone can have great vision but can also recognize uh shortcomings, problems, risks um and make an accurate assessment all of all of those in pursuit of the vision that they have. And finally, I think leadership sometimes believes that speed ma matters more than caution. Speed and caution need to be balanced. So when it's time to go, yes, you got to go. You

[20:26] got to move and you got to move fast. You smartly forward as we would say in the Navy. Uh but other times caution is much more prudent. Okay. It makes no sense to speedily enter into a minefield. Okay. That that is not that is not a recipe for success. So um and and business is uh not literally a minefield of course but there are hidden problems and speeding over them does not necess or

[21:02] speeding attempting to speed over them I should say does not necessarily mean that such an operation will be successful. So, okay, let's let's take a look then at how this translates into the business world. So, I have five thoughts on on on this issue. So, first of all, number one, past success distorts risk perception. So, winning companies often assume that their formula works everywhere. So typical patterns or typical situations

[21:38] that result from this kind of thinking are entering unfamiliar markets too quickly or replicating trying to replicate de domestic success internationally or believing that brand strength substitutes for local understanding. All of those are problematic to say the least and we've seen them by various businesses. So I've talked about Crispy Cream many times. So the kind of devotion to the brand that

[22:13] that that was seen in the southeastern United States where from where crispy creams hailed was not replicated throughout the country. um it had to be built throughout the country the same way it had been built for decades in the southeast, right? And so that that's that that becomes a problem. Um you look at a company like McDonald's. So it it originally thought it could expand internationally with the same menu that was successful here in the United States. And while that worked initially,

[22:49] it was not sustainable because once the novelty of having a so-called American, you know, burger, fries, and shake wore off, people in other countries uh wanted, you know, something that aspired more to their cuisine. And so now when you look at at how McDonald's uh serves its food in other countries, the menu varies quite a bit. So, for example, one of my favorite examples is in France, McDonald's serves wine, right? McDonald's serves no liquor at all here in the United States, but because having

[23:25] a glass of wine with a meal in France is so common, it's something that McDonald's needed to uh to adapt to in order to be successful, right? flavor pallets differ from country to country and so res American restaurants need to adapt their menus. If they don't, they typically do not see the kind of success that they're seeking. So um you know having a strong brand is no substitute for understanding a a market

[24:02] uh that that that you know a company is trying to uh become you know trying to enter and and so it you know one needs to move cautiously as one enters a new market and and and really understand the market, understand the aspects of it, understand the risks and and make plan for them and then once once one has done the proper strategic planning with a sense of humility. Okay, then action becomes the word of the day. Okay, let's

[24:37] take a quick break. I'll be back for some more. When life brings unexpected changes, managing inherited property shouldn't add to your stress. Magnum Properties specializes in probate and trust real estate management. We handle the complexities while you focus on what matters most. From property maintenance to tenant relations, from legal compliance to maximizing value, we're your trusted partner through every step. Magnum Properties, Inc., turning property challenges into peace of mind.

[25:15] Call us today at 213-264-4396 or visit magnumprops.com. [snorts] Okay, so next um growth momentum sometimes masks structural weaknesses. So rapid expansion can uh con conceal underlying fragility and that it may be because nobody in the company wants to be the sort of canary in the coal mine saying hey this is not

[25:50] sustainable right there typically when a rapid expansion is going on every you know leadership this is a team effort everybody needs to get on board everybody needs to put in the time and the hours and the effort to make this happen and everybody needs to adopt this positive vision for growth. And yet uh the the uh the supplies, the ability to distribute them, uh the the bandwidth of of leadership may all be strained because of because of the growth. And

[26:28] it's problematic if people don't speak out about this. So again, warning signals that that um growth momentum is hiding weakness in in an organization's ability to execute. It can include operational strain where where everybody on the operational side constantly feels like they're playing catch-up. They can never get ahead of the game. there you know every everybody's always operating in what amounts to crisis mode. Another is cultural fragmentation where you start to see different areas of the

[27:06] company uh sort of fighting each other. So the marketing people start complaining that they're doing a a a tremendous job in in building you know more more customers, more clients, but the operational people are are failing them. They're not keeping pace. and the operational people start blaming the marketing people for making promises that the company just does not have the ability to to fulfill, right? and and the branding people start looking at the erosion of the brand. If a company is

[27:43] not meeting customers expectations and they start blaming marketing who you know is again is making promises that that the brand can't fulfill which which dilutes brand equity and they blame the operational people who are failing to meet the expectations. Right? So when you have that kind of cultural infighting uh cultural fragmentation it's it's it's very possible that this is a sign of the kind of structural weakness that can bring a company down. So governance lagging behind growth can

[28:18] also be a problem. So the expansion may be happening so quickly that the ability to exercise financial controls uh just may not be robust enough to make sure that resources in particular money is being spent prudently. So often times when companies are in rapid growth mode and a lot of revenue is coming in this idea is created that we can just throw money at these problems and and that will fix them. Or you can see a similar

[28:55] phenomenon with a with a new company where they get a big cash infusion from investors and they're trying to grow rapidly and they hire lots of consultants and all this kind of thing. And yet there's there's no there's no sense of controls over are these expenditures really going to help us meet our goals, right? And then finally, you'll start you might start seeing bottlenecks, especially decisions from senior leadership where they are spread

[29:30] so thin. They're they're they're so exhausted from dealing with crisis after crisis after crisis that they they hit a sort of uh decision fatigue and that too is a structural weakness that in the end will undermine growth momentum. So, one shouldn't be fooled that simply because it looks like a company is growing or maybe its topline sales figures are growing but that that could be hiding very significant structural

[30:05] weakness underneath it. And in the end, the whole it's not sustainable and the the company ends up crashing or at least taking a major hit and having to retrench. Okay. Number three, leadership insulation suppresses critical feedback. So um an or when as as an organization succeeds so often times leadership becomes almost insulated from disscent and it can happen in a couple of ways.

[30:40] First of all, people who control access to leadership may not want denters moving up for fear that leadership will essentially say to them, why are you letting all these naysayers uh you know have access to me? We're we're on this this this great initiative. We need to have positivity as the word of the day, right? So that's one way that leaders get uh insulated from disscent. The other way is that leaders just won't hear it. So they can

[31:15] be hearing disscent uh but but they they you they're just so focused on what they see as being the opportunity in front of them. They they do not lend any credence to somebody coming in and saying, "Hey, I I don't know if you've thought about this, but we've got a risk here. We've got a risk there, right? So, I know from I'll give a military example here for just a minute. Uh when I was stationed in Okinawa, um I I we we got a new uh colonel in charge of what was known as headquarters and services battalion, which was the

[31:51] sort of the unit that oversaw the chaplain's uh department administratively. And um I I went to talk to him one day um about a problem and and the fact of the matter is for whatever reason at that moment he just was not interested in hearing the disscent. Uh nonetheless, you know, I spoke my piece and uh it it essentially was about creating a a college credit program for uh Marines that were in the Brig, which is Navy talk for a jail. and

[32:26] he didn't want them to have that benefit. And one of the things I I said to him was, "Well, sir, uh, you know, one way or another, these these, you know, Marines are leaving the Marine Corps and they're going to go back into civilian life." And a lot of our fellow citizens are going to identify them as Marines. And so if they succeed, that reflects well on the core. And if they fail, that does not reflect well on the core. And like I said, for whatever

[33:02] reason, he just wasn't of a mindset to absorb that lesson when I or to not that lesson to absorb that uh that perspective when when I spoke to him. And yet later he did say to me that he he always appreciated that uh that I I sort of spoke my mind to him because um and and I in talking to my mentor at the time about it. He said he said yeah that's kind of the way he is when you're talking to him. He seems very resistant but I assure you that he remembers these things and he thinks about them and he

[33:38] he takes them on board. And indeed he did. Right. So that is one of the one of the signs of a good of a good military officer is um even if in a way he's not quite prepared to hear it while it's being spoken to him, it stays in his head and it it ruminates there and it does impact his decisions. Right? And so leaders of businesses need to develop the same ability, minimally the same ability. Better if when somebody is

[34:13] dissenting that they will sit down and hear the person out. But e but even if that's hard in the midst of whatever is going on, we need to take the dissent on board. Let it bounce around in our minds and and give it due consideration because even if the descent is not wholly on point, there may be parts of it that that are useful and should be taken into consideration. [snorts] Okay. Another issue of um leadership insulation is just data being filtered

[34:49] before it reaches decision makers, right? And this could this could be for a number of reasons. It could be purposely filtered or it could be as I mentioned um previously that that governance is lagging behind and so the ability to accurately process data so that leadership is getting a clear picture. That ability is is not strong enough. It's not developed enough to deal with the current situation. And so whatever data is getting up to

[35:25] leadership uh to decision makers is is not accurate. It's not robust enough. And so they're getting a filtered picture that can lead to uh bad decisionmaking. Um and finally uh there a a culture can be created where internal critics they just lose their influence. Okay. If you start to see good people who had influence and had been able to help the company grow and prosper well

[36:01] before starting to leave the company, that may be a sign that leadership has insulated itself or become insulated uh and and and that critical feedback has been suppressed to the point where formerly what were you know good people providing valuable input are so frustrated they start to leave the company that that is a bellweather right and so in the military this this is dealt with

[36:36] through kind of what we would might call structured disscent so I used to sit in uh not sit in I used to participate in staff meetings and one of the most important aspect effects for conducting a good staff meeting or whatever what whatever the meeting you know whatever the name the meeting has is that leadership be open to dissenting voices and indeed to encourage disscent encourage critical feedback. Okay. Um this this same colonel I mentioned

[37:11] um after his chaplain left, he asked me to cover the battalion uh as well as my other duties, to which I said, "Yes, of course, sir." Right. And so that meant that I went to his his uh weekly staff meeting. And it was interesting to watch him go around the table and get and get the report from each of his officers. And there were some that, you know, no matter what, they were giving this sort of uh polyianaish perspective on what was going on. And [laughter]

[37:46] interestingly enough, the way you could tell that he didn't like it was he would call you by your first name, which is not a sign of respect in a staff meeting. Okay? In a staff meeting, military courtesy uh is adhered to, especially among the Marine Corps. In private, if you got called by your first name, so that was a sign of of favor basically, but not in a staff meeting. And it was it was always interesting that I think these officers uh we were all junior

[38:22] officers. um w with the exception of his deputy. Um you know there were those of us who who pretty quickly figured that out and there were others who didn't realize there was a difference between the staff meeting and the private sphere unfortunately. Uh and and they they you know the sort of um yesmen pretty rapidly uh lost uh influence with the colonel because of that. So in business, we need to create the same kind of atmosphere where

[39:00] people are encouraged to speak out, where they're encouraged to criticize, question respectfully. Of course, of course. uh it you know um subordinates should always be respectful uh of people who are senior to them uh in leadership. However, there's a big difference between being respectful and being a yes man. And uh respect needs to go both ways, right? So, um, you know, it I I think it it's crucial if we're in a in a

[39:37] a more junior role to figure out those dynamics, right? Uh, is respect being accorded down as well as up and how can I tell, right? So, there's less formality in business. It may be harder to figure out. Okay. But an astute observer will will I think pretty quickly, you know, get a temperature for that for that particular issue. Okay. So, um with with you know, if you are in a

[40:15] junior role and you feel that your critical input is is being suppressed, it behooves you to meet one- on-one with your supervisor. um and and assess that and and and bring it to his attention. Okay. Um that may be the most that you can do. Okay. But recognize that a le that an organization that is suppressing criticism is one that is very likely to be overconfident and there can be very severe

[40:51] consequences as a result. Okay. Finally, for some companies, expansion becomes identity. And I think we're seeing this right now with the with the the AI phenomenon. Now, I don't mean that necessarily companies are identifying expansion and and development of AI as as their identity per se. I think that that's what both companies and in that that's the issue that both companies and

[41:26] investors are wrestling with in that uh you know are the the sort of Magnificent 7 and and the major uh the major developers of large language models and and and automation and such. Are they letting the investment these huge, you know, hundreds of billions of dollar investments in AI become their identity? Or are they actually being pretty prudent in doing this and this really is

[42:02] the proper investment? That's the unanswered question. I think last year it was it seemed that everybody pretty much agreed that these investments had to be made. We couldn't let fall we couldn't you know let China catch up or get ahead of us in a AI technology. uh now this year I think investors especially are being more questioning of whether you know the the just the the ability to announce you know these huge investments is really that that's really

[42:37] what it's all about as opposed to the investments being reasonable and that's a good thing okay to to you know be looking more carefully at these investments [clears throat] to put putting these companies under greater scrutiny should incentivize them to be more careful in in uh executing their strategies. Right? So the problem that that that underlies this issue is companies can become addicted to growth. Um so instead of

[43:13] asking whether expansion is wise um leaders are only asking you know how fast can expansion occur right and so that that is sort of the not sort of that is the core question with AI right now instead of asking is this particular investment in AI wise you know are companies just saying well look how fast can we spend money on developing AI and and Again, I'm not I'm not necessarily convinced that uh companies are um

[43:48] making investment and expansion in AI their identity because it seems like uh we're already starting to get huge benefits from it. When a company like Square thinks that they can employ, I should say half their workforce with uh with AI tools. Well, they're essentially saying that AI is going to double the productivity of their employment of of their workforce. That's that's astonishing by

[44:24] by any calculation. Okay. Now maybe Square is wrong. Okay. And that's not to minimize the the havoc that will that that will occur in the lives of the people who were laid off. Of course, it's extremely difficult for them. Although I did hear one report that most of these people are so wellkilled, so bright, they're going to quickly get absorbed into other organizations. I I hope that's the case. But I I think that to dismiss the investments as AI as something similar to the dot bubble of approximately 20

[45:02] years ago, that's a big mistake. I I don't think it's by any means clear that that that that's what's going on. Um so [clears throat] and one of some of the things that support my contention are what you one of the ways you can see that expansion has become identity is that balance sheets become overleveraged but that is not the case today a lot of the AI spending is coming out of current cash flows not from borrowed money so that's number one number two um expansion as identity can can it it

[45:39] tends to dilute strategy where there doesn't seem to be any point to all of this. And while [clears throat] I don't know that it's necessary necessarily completely clear what each company's individual strategy is, I think it would be wrong also to conclude that there's there's no strategy or there's a highly diluted strategy. Okay, just the the reports out on Nvidia this morning about what it's looking at in terms of potentially shifting the types of chips that it produces and how it does it. So, this is

[46:16] a company I think that's very engaged in plotting its strategic future. Okay. And so it's unlikely uh that that its strategy is is being diluted. Uh or if it is, management is taking note of that and they're they're looking at ways to uh reinvigorate the strategy. [snorts] Um and finally, internal chaos. And I don't I don't know, it could be going on and we're not hearing it in the public. Uh but I don't think there's a lot of internal chaos

[46:52] going on. I mean, notwithstanding the the brew haha going on between quad and the department of defense and and you know, Microsoft and all of that, that's the typical kind of thing that goes on when you know companies are interacting with the government and and things are being figured out. I don't think that that's that necessarily is indicative of any kind of internal chaos either in these companies or in the DoD. Right? there's a there there is a uh a push and a pull that takes place when when these kind of

[47:29] new technologies are are being adopted and adapted. Right? And so um the main thing to remember in this is expansion is a tool. It's not a purpose. Okay. Is is a company uh has a company made its identity just expanding seemingly to no purpose? Well, I you know that has to be looked at for each individual company. But um I mean there were times for example when the airlines seemed to be expanding

[48:04] um and you know and and they were just spending a ton of money buying airplanes, buying new routes, buying new um uh gates at airports and such. Um and and in many cases they ended up having to retrench because their expansion was just uh outstripping their ability to support that expansion. Right? But in other cases, it's not necessarily the case. And so this is something that leadership needs to be very serious about examining. And this is why not suppressing criticism is so important.

[48:41] Okay. So how do leaders uh counter overconfidence? Well, number one, they encourage people in their organizations to challenge assumptions. They keep their minds open. Okay? In meetings, they say, you know, you know, who disagrees with this? Who who sees holes in this? Who thinks I'm wrong? Okay, I've said that in staff meetings, right, where I'm talking about something and I and I'll say, "Okay,

[49:16] here's what I think." Okay. But I but I could be wrong. And if if if you think so, please tell me, right? Because I want to know. I I it makes it does me no good for my ideas to hold sway and then fail. Okay. Um and this is I hope an attitude that all leaders will adopt. Okay. um they they need to create independent intelligence channels so that it's very hard to stifle um disscent. It's very

[49:52] hard to stifle the information flow throughout the organization. Um, next they need to do post-mortem reviews or what we would call hot washes in the military after successes as well as after failures. Okay. So, if we've had a success, why were we successful? Okay. What what caused that to happen? What might have derailed that success? Okay. and was there sort of a confluence of

[50:29] events that just happened to come together that built that success rather than things that we actually did. And then finally, they need to um they need to create decision structures that reward dissent. Okay? So that's not saying that we want people in our organizations who no matter what is going on, they're always naysaying. No, that's not any better than always saying positive things. We need people who will look at issues critically

[51:04] and give us their candid input on what's going on. So, some some uh some closing uh thoughts. Um first of all um the greatest strategic failures oftentimes um um I mean um very rarely begin with weakness. Okay. They usually come out of mis a misplaced uh sense of what strength will enable them to do. Okay. And and then from that um once leaders

[51:40] start believing that they cannot lose and they stop asking the important questions that will prevent defeat. So then they're sewing the seeds for some kind of problem if not collapse. Right? So strategy demands confidence but it also demands humility. Okay. So, the strongest organizations, the strongest businesses are not those that are the most certain. They're the ones that are

[52:17] the most vigilant. They realize questioning their assumptions is a is the strong thing to do and it's what will help their businesses endure. So, I thank you very much for joining me today. Uh if you have any comments, questions, criticisms, uh links will be in the show notes uh to social media as well as my email address. So please feel free to post those comments. Um you can also post them on uh on uh Spotify and Apple Podcast and for that matter

[52:53] YouTube, the three main platforms where where this uh where this show airs. And uh I I you know always uh love to love to read uh your comments. Appreciate them very much. And if you know of someone who you think would benefit from this show, um please pass it along to them. I I would really appreciate the opportunity to try and gain them as a subscriber. So once again, oh and then uh real quickly, tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. is my show uh people making money. That's 10 a.m. Pacific time. Okay. full slate of shows. 10:00 a.m. Monday

[53:30] morning, uh, trust and estates weekly, and then 10 a.m. Tuesdays, like today is business lessons from the military. 10 a.m. Wednesdays, again, people making money. And then 5:00 p. p.m. every other Thursday is my show, Jiggers's Place, where we have a cocktail and schmoo, and talk about things unrelated to finances. So again, I appreciate you joining me today. Wishing you a wonderful rest of the day and signing off as I always do. Marie darling, you're my bell. Courage at all times, my friends.