Be Consistent in Values, But Flexible in Process

Be consistent in your standards, but open to innovations.

Often new ideas are met with resistance. We are rigid in our structures and processes, unwilling to change, because we realize that change can be inefficient. We are uncertain because we do not want to compromise short term quality for long-term gain. This response make sense as, with any change, we face uncertainty. There's a reason that you set your alarm for 6am every day, make the same cup of coffee every morning, or are binging The Office for the 7th time (guilty). That's because these habits are familiar, and have certainty in outcome. They have been tested already, and they are both comfortable and familiar. Familiarity can be beautiful (great relationships, commitment to a business or goal, traditions at holidays) but it can also lead to bad habits. Sometimes familiarity means that we settle for the status quo instead of seeking new ideas and innovations. While this may seem innocent enough in our own routines, this can have a large impact on our businesses. While innovation is well and good, it is contradictory to efficiency in the short term. So why should we innovate? Isn't anything that combats efficiency a bad idea? Innovation may be uncomfortable, and perhaps inefficient, but implementation pays dividends in the long term. The case study below highlights this very well.

What if you took three rights instead of a left? I'm not speaking in metaphors, this is a serious suggestion. What if instead of taking a left when driving, you took three rights? Reading this sentence without any context, I probably sound like an idiot. That's okay, it's not my idea. It's actually a practice at UPS.

UPS drivers do not often take left turns in the U.S. (and countries that drive on the right side of the road; the inverse is true in countries that drive on the left side of the road). Why is this? The answer is simple: they have a commitment to their vision (delivering packages more quickly at the lowest cost), not their processes (how they deliver packages). According to ABC News in 2007 "UPS trucks drove 2.5 billion miles last year, but the company says its package flow technology combined with right-turn routes saved 28,541,472 million miles, and three million gallons of fuel", and in 2017, according to The Conversation, "the company claims it uses 10m gallons less fuel, emits 20,000 tonnes less carbon dioxide and delivers 350,000 more packages every year. The efficiency of planning routes with its navigation software this way has even helped the firm cut the number of trucks it uses by 1,100, bringing down the company’s total distance travelled by 28.5m miles – despite the longer routes."

Not only is this change great for UPS from a cost-saving perspective, but it also is more efficient for their drivers, their customers, and the environment. In a company that strives to deliver packages at a low cost and quickly, this is critical to their bottom line, while also supporting their values. "Left turns mean idling, which increases the time a route takes. Left turns mean going against traffic, which increases exposure to oncoming cars. Right turns are faster. Right turns save fuel", according to UPS. This is interesting because their innovation is actually less efficient on paper. We know that three rights make a left, but none of us would actually build that strategy into our business. Yet UPS understands that the best way to take a left is to take three rights.

Simon Sinek, speaker and famed book author of books such as Start With Why and Leaders Eat Last has this to say, "innovation is inefficient". That's just a snippet from a 30-minute lecture. He's not saying that it isn't worthwhile, or that it isn't a worthy endeavor. What he is saying is that it's messy. Innovation isn't clean, sleek, and efficient. Innovation wastes time, it wastes resources, it can be frustrating. It causes resistance. The easiest thing to do is usually what you're already doing. That's probably why you're doing it. Changing the process is changing routine and changing habits. UPS slowly rolled out the "don't turn left" rule. Imagine being the first guy to try that out. Imagine how alien, how weird, how inefficient it might have seemed. To this day, it still seems weird to those who don't practice it (like me and probably you). During research for this article, I found that there was an apt testimonial from a UPS worker. He said that he drives his wife nuts because he'll always take three rights instead of a left.

Innovation is inefficient - Simon Sinek

Think about the companies that were left in the dust due to lack of innovation. Blockbuster refused to acknowledge the subscription model because they relied on late fees. Netflix took over. Kodak used to be a household name. They invented the digital camera, but didn't innovate their business model, so the digital camera took off without Kodak. Taxi cabs were overtaken by Uber because they had an app, and a better business model. Amazon flipped the book industry on its head with the introduction of the Kindle. The only bookstore to attempt to innovate was Barnes and Noble with their Nook e-reader, which wasn't introduced until several years after the Kindle had already become successful. None of these companies, or the systems in place weren't working. All of them were working well until they were usurped by innovative new ideas and technologies. Your processes may be working, but that doesn't mean you are unable to innovate. After all, there was nothing wrong with the paper book. This doesn't mean you need to reinvent the wheel, it just means that you should probably reconsider how you systematize your business.

You don't have to create new systems or ideas, you can instead implement the innovations that have been successful for others. In this article, instead of creating new examples, I have quoted Simon Sinek, the processes of UPS, and given the example of Blockbuster versus Netflix, Kodak versus an enemy of their own making, Uber versus taxi cabs, and Kindle versus every bookstore in the world. I didn't invent these examples, I didn't even interview anyone for this article. All I did was leverage the information that exists to compile ideas. Simon Sinek has said pretty much everything I'm saying right now, but better. Innovation isn't always invention, in business it is often not a new invention. Often it's a remix of existing ideas.

We are in a new world with COVID-19. You can choose to sit around and refuse to do anything, or you can adapt and build a better business. Half of the companies on the Fortune 500 list were started during a financial recession or depression. If "the economy" was their cited reason for not getting started, or "the economy" was a reason to take our foot off the gas, we'd be in a world with half as many successful businesses. There's no reason that you, your business, or your team, can't use this time to reinvigorate and reevaluate your process. Do not sacrifice your values or vision by refusing to innovate, and do not sacrifice your values or vision in order to do so. We went from the abacus, to the calculator, to the Excel spreadsheet. All of these tools are useful to solve mathematical problems, and you can still acquire these tools. All of these tools can still be used today, nobody is stopping you. Which tool serves your client or your customer best? Which tool is the best fit to achieve your vision? That's the tool you should be using in your process. If it isn't, replace it with a better tool. If it doesn't exist, solve for the problem, and invent a solution. You may not have given much thought to the process, but the way you are already solving problems is your process. The route to your goals are the systems in place. Are you idling in traffic, waiting to take a left, or are you going to take three rights to get there?

For more content like this, follow me on LinkedIn! New articles every other Friday at linkedin.com/in/caedengoering

Sources

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=3005890&page=1

https://theconversation.com/why-ups-drivers-dont-turn-left-and-you-probably-shouldnt-either-71432

https://www.ups.com/us/en/services/knowledge-center/article.page?kid=aa3710c2