The Goal: Become a Disrupter . . . or Not?

I’m a big fan of the Nebraska Cornhuskers. I watch their games . . . when I don’t have time to watch any other sports teams. I follow their recruiting cycles. I read the news . . . and gossip . . . about the program. I remember vividly the 1970 Orange Bowl . . . and loved the decade of Husker Power in the 1990s—three national championships baby! Of course, I’m not alone in my “fanatical fandom” . . . others are just as freakishly passionate about their teams.

Following a program, especially a Division I program, is a great bird’s eye view into the various topics of leadership. After all, these coaches are essentially the CEO’s of a major organization with all the personnel, budgeting, on-boarding, and cultural issues of any type of organization. Vicariously, the fan can contemplate the day-to-day decisions and actions driving the program to success . . . or not.

Unfortunately, right now, my Huskers have been suffering. Yes, suffering. In my opinion, based on observation and comments by the coaches, the team needs a few more “disrupters” to get back to national significance. You know, those players that can change a game, take over, cause the other team to change their plan to account for their presence. Game changers.

Ndomukong Suh: A disrupter! Photo: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ndamukong_Suh

In business, there has been a lot of talk about organizations becoming disrupters as well. But most businesses, like most football teams, cannot count on the reliability of finding, or developing, a disrupter. Disrupters are rare. Instead, most businesses have to be good at innovating, mastering disciplines, and hard work. We’ll get to that later. At the moment, consider this . . .

Looking For a Decade of Dominance . . . and Setting Goals

I fondly remember the 1990s because Nebraska was dominant. Teams adapted to us. I remember commentators talking about how the national championship always ran through Nebraska. Since our decade of dominance that mantle has passed on to others . . . Oregon, Alabama, Clemson, and (as much as it pains my to type it), Ohio State.

Next year, Division I coaches will meet with their team and set their goals for the year. Every coach, hoping to become the next dominant organization, will set the same ultimate goal: win a national championship! But, how many teams have a realistic chance at that ultimate goal next year? Not many. Ten? Twenty? (Yes, I know cinderella seasons do happen and every coach can dream, still, the point stands.)

How many coaches next year, trying to become the “Next Greatest Thing”—or save their job—and improve their team’s performance, will try some significant new change, hoping that this change will be the key to unlocking better performance? What percentage will graft in some new component—a new offensive coordinator, a new defensive scheme, adopting RPO principles, etc—hoping to achieve the results that have worked with some other program. For most, the exercise will be like trying to keep a inflatable buoy under water, as it stubbornly continues to rise to the surface. (No Nebraska fan will forget how many times Tom Osborne’s I formation was criticized as outdated.* Many experts seemed to think the new offensive schemes were superior. This belief and the arrogance that it promoted, I think, was one component in Nebraska’s Decade of Dominance!) But often seeking the “quick fix” is attempting a easy solution to deeper fundamental issues that are causing the problems.

In human systems theory, this equilibrium or homeostasis** is the tendency for organizations to get “stuck” in applying the same solutions to problems. These solutions, whether it is avoiding problems or wholesale reactive “fixes,” only lead to yet another return to the normal functional patterns the organization has maintained over time. The on-going “reciprocal interactions” and “feedback loops” that have defined the system, and kept it from escaping the “status quo,” will—without addressing the underlying structures—reorient the organization, returning it, like a buoyant object to the water’s surface—to it’s normal state.

Buoyancy as the homeostatic normal state. Photo by Lukas Juhas on Unsplash

Understanding the difficulty of real changes, some leaders will grasp—albeit superficially too often—the need for fundamental changes. Thus the concept of “disruption” becomes appealing and influencers have seized upon the hunger to find a solution.

In our next post, we’ll give an example of how business gurus push the idea being a disrupter . . . and lay out a more viable option that what most leaders need to focus on.

*Especially enjoyable for the Cornhusker fan are clips of the experts predicting that Florida’s Fun & Gun would dominate Nebraska in the 1996 Fiesta Bowl!)

**Note, homeostasis can be exhibited by constant attempts at change, which ultimately, fail. Thus no real change happens.