Why not? Why re-invent the wheel? Why try something new when we already have tried and tested? Why venture into uncharted territory? Why gamble with someone new when we know someone old? What’s wrong with trusting our old comrades for a new fight?
Because even though the tried and tested become ‘tired’ and ‘wasted’, they still have our trust. In fact, more so they’re trusted than any other virtue. Trusted to at least not to f***up if not trusted to deliver! But sometimes this ‘trusted’ legacy gets to the head and gets the best of everything that was on offer if there was anything else at all!
And if the trusted label is somehow also pinned with a past success label, we’re tied to a legacy we can never really break from. Well, not at least without colossal damage! Because its believed good in every aspect of the way, trustworthy and successful delivery. That’s recipe enough for a remake, another success story. So, let’s just get on with it and get going!
Different dynamics? Different business? Different sector? Different industry? Why should these matter? When the team is a winning one and a trustworthy one? Does it matter when the turf, the weather, the audience, the opponents, the game mode are all starkly different than before and or may even be in contrast with what has been experienced before?
Why should a contrast even matter when the team is the same winning and trustworthy bunch of achievers? Shouldn’t matter, right? But why do then the sportspeople and those governing them ensure their teams are exposed to all different forms of the game at different turfs, under different conditions with different opponents?
For practice? Rehearsals? Ensuring perfection? Ensuring winning streaks? Ensuring development of the skillset? Ensuring selection of the right fit for the team? Because had a player delivering successfully in one format been a guarantee enough for surely delivering in another format or all formats, none of these exposures will be required.
But sports allow practice sessions, rehearsals, friendly matches, etc. Not just in fact allow these but require these as well. For the reasons already mentioned above. And what’s more, sportspeople mostly get paid for these. But could such a luxury be afforded by people in business? Could businesses have rehearsals and practice runs?
Maybe yes, when for instance an entity is immune from any competition from the market forces. Or the entity does not have a business plan or objectives. Or the entity is not on a budget. Or the entity’s risk capacity allows for several costly mistakes. Or the entity doesn’t need to find its feet or worry for its survival!
How many such entities are out there would be anybody’s guess. Even if a few start out as these, they definitely don’t have the luxury to remain operating as such for long. Because not before long they’re required to have all these and no more room for rehearsing!
However, the type of entities are not a concern for this blogpost. But the type of resources / people the entities invest in definitely are! Because it’s the people that maketh or ‘breaketh’ the entities! Or more appropriately the entities are known by the people it keeps! And what’s better than to have a known / established winning team set up a new entity at a new turf, in a previously unchartered territory? Nothing Right?
Wrong! There is something better than that! Hiring such a team and asking them to manage everything including those few others as well that are not part of that winning team. Of course, that’s better than the best. A winning team deserves a freehand, because all this team knows is winning!
So why not give them a free hand? It’s for the winning, right? Hardly so. Because for the same team it’s a new turf, an unchartered territory, something they might not have even heard about before. And with no opportunity to rehearse or practice, keeping the winning streak is hardly a possibility, because the odds are all against and almost none for.
The team knows winning for sure, but does it know this new territory? Is it aware of the new turf? Does it understand the business dynamics at the new place? Does it understand what’s it like to be in market there or what the market is? Is it cognizant of the rules of the game at this place? Does it know the competitors and customers of this new market?
For sure AI can help. But surely had it been enough of knowing through AI, the entity would never have been inclined to recruit people and pay for their skillset. Instead, it would hire / invest in AI rather than a winning team even! And because if copying skill set and experience of a winning team and pasting it in a new entity is the simple recipe for success, AI allows for phenomenal copying from massive datasets (or success heads if you may!) at exponential speeds and paste them to get the new entity be up and running in no time!
So why invest in a winning team then? When one can have a simple algorithm to develop and utilize and get all the copying and pasting one needs, not just from one winning team but from several others and the generative AI generating a new winning ‘headless’ team?
Ok, I get it. Winning is good. Winning elevates the profile. And recruiters in their quest for finding the best talent are actually looking for winners. But is that all? Is winning the most significant and perhaps the only skill that distinguishes a resume from the others? Is that what a recruiter should be focused on?
Or should the recruiter be focused on the change brought about by the winner? The change that positively and tangibly impacted the entity the winner was serving. And how that winning was actually the individual’s own doing as against the contribution of others and even the entity’s? And the costs of that winning? And how that winning could be relevant to the new entity?
Now for instance, if winning is the metric, auditors have several wins owing to the uncountable findings issued over the course of their multiple engagements. But how many of these findings actually helped improve the system of Governance, Risk Management and Controls is the real winning output.
And if copying and pasting a team thought to be behind a success story brings ideas like seeking consultancy and advisory for setting up a consulting and advisory entity, to the table, the kind of winning this team represented is pretty evident.
The success that it would represent would be the consultant’s success, because before it starts making its mark as a consulting entity, it would be a consulting client. That success story would then be impossible for the entity to break free from ever!
By ‘success’ I meant continuity irrespective of any supporting legislation calling for the entity’s perpetual succession.
What the entity could be or what it could have been are other measures of success, but that’s another story!
And copying has its limitations. Especially when it comes to coping with copying. Even the sponsors might not be able to find it in themselves at one point.
But at that point, what about those others not copied and pasted? Like I’ve always been, I am in for the killing. If it’s a win or if it may be considered a success, is not my concern, because I am not copied and pasted!