Science, Leadership and The Art of War: 3 Principles of Success

Science, Leadership and the Art of War are surprisingly similar. Most importantly, the same principles apply to getting great results in all three areas. The three most compelling principles to apply are:

1. Make Nature Work for You
2. Strategum (aka an hour in the library is worth a thousand in the lab)
3. First Who, then What

What is particularly interesting is how each of these principles is used and useful in all three contexts. Now, I know nothing about war, I recently read the art of war. So these observations in science and leadership are based on both experience and learning from others (or books), and the art of war is entirely based on Sun Tzu’s PoV. With that said, here are the key things to think about:

Make nature work for you:

In science, this is probably the best advice you can get. Especially in pursuit of research, too often, researchers will try their best to get an outcome that goes against what the material/study/device is giving them. Instead, you should focus on the processes that the science wants to do. For example, if the material you are working with is a metal, use it as a metal, don’t try to force it to become an insulator by manipulating its surroundings, you will fail.

In The Art of War by Sun Tzu, he spends a great deal of time talking about how great generals should use the land to their advantage. Essentially, to make sure you only put your troops in areas where they will have an advantage and not deplete their strength. This is quite literally using nature (the land) to give you favor in war.

The same is true for leadership. It is most important to find the areas of strength and great intelligence of the people on your team. Then, deploy them in those areas. Yes, it is important to stretch people, but primarily in the areas where they are extremely strong. This advice is echoed by many, like Ben Horowitz in Hard thing about Hard Things, or in the book, Multipliers. A specific example from my own world: if someone on your team is technically very strong, but not as strong on the people side, make them a technical mentor instead of a manager. They will amplify the areas they are strong at, without needing to make up ground in areas where they are less strong.

Strategum:

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu eloquently says ‘Victorious warriors win first, and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.’ This is certainly poetic, and he makes a very good point. It is very important to study the conditions first, and know whether you are likely to win based on those conditions. As opposed to just embarking on the path, which will likely lead to defeat. Sun Tzu points out many factors, based on which he can calculate the likelihood of success. Of course a key point here is the discipline to actually behave this way, as the temptation to embark on war as a general is extremely high. In fact, it is what your job is seen as in the short term.

In leadership, strategy, and the ability to stick to it, is a key input to success. This is discussed often - in ‘Leading with Vision,’ ‘Hard Thing about Hard Things,’ and others, there is a key point that it is important for any leader to set a clear vision, and strategy to accomplish it. Then enable the discipline to make the right decisions. This is especially true when deciding what an organization should not do. The hardest thing for an organization to do is to say no to something that brings in results/revenue in the short term. The ability to strategic/long-term focussed is both important, and hard. Leaders should strive to clarity in the strategy and say no when it’s needed.

In science, researchers can best employee strategy by doing the right amount of background research, i.e. literature reviews, conferences and other such tactics. My old advisor used to say ‘an hour in the library is worth a thousand in the lab.’ This principle will help you ensure that you are choosing paths that you are likely to succeed in, rather than waste a great deal of time in areas known to fail. This is counter-intuitive, since researchers need results in the short-term to show their advisor or grant body. However, this results in wasted time in the long term. In fact, a specific thing people in my lab used to do is regularly reach out to the authors of a particular lab to validate a certain protocol or finding, so as to not waste our time reproducing the result. Even if it took a couple weeks to get input from the author. This was extremely high leverage on our time, and success was far more likely.

First Who, Then What:

In ‘Good to Great,’ by Jim Collins, a classic book on leadership, he discusses a very important idea -- first who, then what. The idea is it is more important to hire the best people for a job than it is to know what exactly they will work on. I have been lucky to see the benefit of this in action where I currently work. We hire people who we think will be great, and see them hold several different types of positions in the organization, where they add value in various ways. This is most important in a growing organization, where the needs are dynamic anyway, so hiring for ‘what’ instead of ‘who’ will likely lead to obsolete hires anyway.

I had the benefit of seeing this principle in action in my lab as well. My advisor had a very interesting hiring philosophy. He intentionally hired the best people he could from various departments (both among grad students and post-docs). The most dramatic example I witnessed was when he hired a plant biologist. We were a chemical engineering/nanotech lab. The idea seemed absurd. To him it was obvious, hire a great plant biologist, put him in a nanotech lab, and create a new field ‘functional plants.’ Within a couple years of the hire, plants were developed that could detect explosives - first who, then what.

Finally, Sun Tzu’s version of this principle is to focus on ensuring the success of your troops. “Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look upon them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death.” He even talks about a tactic of war where you optimize for battle by going to areas where your troops will have the ability to eat and take rest. That as long as you make sure they are well taken care of and energized, you will win. That any tactics/strategy that does not optimize for troops will certainly lead to defeat.

The principles that lead to success seem to do so across disparate fields: Science, Leadership and the Art of War. However, maybe the real take away is they aren’t that disparate. To get the best work in any field, the same principles apply. How do these principles apply to the work you pursue?