Strategic Choice

To achieve comparative advantage you must choose. Are you slave or free? Which is more important, security or opportunity? Are you seeking a near-term exit or a long-term home? Who are you? Who are you not?

Moses was a very capable leader. He was skilled at creating a meaningful and motivating context through the stories he told and the purposes he advocated. Moses had profound insight regarding the fundamental strengths of individuals and organizations. He cultivated creativity, he empowered, and he loved. Moses refrained from interfering with the free choice of others, but he provided effective frameworks for making good choices. He demonstrated remarkable resilience. Moses was an expert practitioner of six key techniques for producing unique value.

But with all his strengths Moses still had to choose. He could not be all things to all people; he could only be himself – his true self. In leading his people he had to make a fundamental strategic choice, a decision that accurately reflected the reality of his people and their condition.

Strategy is the outcome of analysis. But strategy is not analysis. An effective strategist will consider a whole host of internal and external factors in assessing threat, vulnerability, and strength. A strategist will seek a careful and accurate definition of risk. But finally the strategist must make a choice. The choice can be open to change, but a choice must be made and trade-offs accepted.

In my consulting practice I have often found, especially with larger clients, superb strategic analysis. But the willingness to make a choice based on the analysis is often absent. There is an arrogance, or greed, or – most often – fear that leads many managers to avoid making a real choice.

I once worked with a jurisdiction to assess the threat of terrorism and develop an appropriate prevention strategy. Realistic threats specific to the jurisdiction were outlined. The current capabilities of the jurisdiction were reviewed. Some gaps between the perceived threats and current capabilities were identified and a set of risks defined. The analysis implied some likely priorities, but determining explicit priorities requires a set of choices that – very appropriately – could not be made by the analysts.

Even with superb staff work in-hand leadership resisted making choices. The most consequential risks outlined by staff related to agro-terrorism, an attack on the water system, and biological or radiological WMD. The jurisdiction almost certainly did not have the resources to deal effectively to prevent and mitigate all three threats. But leadership refused to choose and – in essence – left the jurisdiction equally vulnerable to all three threats

Another client was a pioneer in the development of a new product. The product was well-received in the market. The product could, however, be adapted to many purposes and was highly replicable. As the pioneer, the client had the unique opportunity to choose its preferred channels and categories. The founder refused to choose. He wanted to own and defend every niche. This was beyond his capacity. Within three years the company had gone from being the market leader to being an also-ran in every niche.

Michael Porter writes, “Strategy is making trade-offs in competing. The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. Without trade-offs, there would be no need for choice and thus no need for strategy.” (Porter, Michael; What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, November-December 1996)

The Books of Moses include a number of “thou shalt not’s.” Saying no – and knowing when and why to say no – may be the most crucial decision made by senior leadership. The decision not to do one thing is often critical to focusing on and actually achieving another.

“General management is more than the stewarding of individual functions,” writes Porter. “It’s core is strategy: defining and communicating the company’s unique position, making trade-offs, and forging fit among activities. The leader must provide the discipline to decide which industry changes and customer needs the company will respond to, while avoiding organizational distractions and maintaining the company’s distinctiveness. Managers at lower levels lack the perspective and the confidence to maintain a strategy. There will be constant pressures to compromise, relax trade-offs, and emulate rivals. One of the leader’s jobs is to teach others in the organization about strategy – and to say no.”

When you choose to say no, you must also be able to articulate why and communicate how the no reinforces the chosen strategy and will advance the goals of the enterprise. This explanation will usually relate to either strategic integration or strategic consistency, or both.

Comparative Advantage

Moses lived during a period of profound and far-reaching change. The entire Eastern Mediterranean was in turmoil. The power of Egypt was in sharp decline. The Hittite Empire, long a source of stability in what is now Turkey, Syria,and Iraq, collapsed. New empires and numerous smaller kingdoms emerged. The Exodus is close in time to the Trojan War. Homer’s heroes may have been one of many aggressive “Sea Peoples” that terrorized the region for a century or more.

These changes created an opportunity that Moses exploited, but the same conditions presented several serious threats. The descendents of Jacob were comparatively few in number, militarily weak, and economically poor. Their survival was uncertain and, even, unlikely.

Moses was in serious need of a source of comparative advantage. His small enterprise was exceedingly vulnerable. To escape Egypt and conquer Canaan Moses and his people needed something that would give them strength greater than their size or wealth. In a world characterized by violent change and aggressive rivalries, the descendents of Jacob needed a source of security and continuity.

Moses promised a place – flowing with milk and honey – but if we consider his behavior it is clear that Moses did not consider the place a sufficient comparative advantage. Otherwise he would have moved to seize the place much sooner than he did. Instead he delayed.

In about the fourth year of the forty-year Exodus Moses sent spies into Canaan in preparation for an invasion. But most of the spies returned reporting, “The people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large…. We are not able to go up against the people for they are stronger than we.” (Numbers 13: 28-31)

Reacting to the spies’ reports most of the people began to talk of replacing Moses and returning to Egypt. Moses ultimately preserved – and even enhanced – his authority. But the episode demonstrated that his people were not ready to claim their potential. They saw themselves as weak and exaggerated the strength of the opposition. Their fears obscured reality and suppressed their potential.

Each of the great-grandsons of Abraham had arrived in Egypt in distress, but free and keenly aware of their unique value. In the generations that followed, however, the unique value had been nearly forgotten and the people fell into the false identity of slavery. The passivity and fear of slavery was, ultimately, too much for Moses to overcome. Almost all those who had been slaves in Egypt would die before a new generation was allowed to complete the Exodus and enter the Promised Land.

With the new generation born during the Exodus Moses worked to restore a sense of unique purpose and potential. To survive in an environment of convulsive change, Moses had to change the mind-set and worldview of his people. Instead of nostalgia regarding the security of slavery (a constant refrain in the book of Exodus) he encouraged an enthusiasm regarding future challenges.

Moses was a realist. He understood his position in the world. He understood the strength of his adversaries. Moses knew the limitations of his people and foresaw the disasters ahead. He anticipated failure, but was confident that recovery was possible.

The strategy that Moses implemented to achieve comparative advantage was focused on recurring recovery more than immediate success. This was a crucial choice. He was focused on long-term survival and continuity. The descendents of Jacob would outlast their adversaries. They would encounter disaster, but would be restored.

When you have had children and children’s children, and become complacent in the land, if you act corruptly by making an idol in the form of anything, thus doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, and provoking him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that you will soon utterly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to occupy; you will not live long on it, but will be utterly destroyed. The Lord will scatter you among the peoples; only a few of you will be left among the nations where the Lord will lead you. There you will serve other gods made by human hands, objects of wood and stone, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. From there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find him if you search after him with all your heart and soul. In your distress, when all these things have happened to you in time to come, you will return to the Lord your God and heed him. Because the Lord your God is a merciful God, he will neither abandon you nor destroy you; he will not forget the covenant with your ancestors that he swore to them. (Deuteronomy 4: 25-31)

Over one hundred generations later the effectiveness of this strategy is evident. It was a courageous and creative strategic choice. It was also very realistic. Most strategies are based on much more short-term and much less realistic thinking.

Most organizations fail within seven years; very few last a generation. An enterprise that has preserved its identity and independence for a century is remarkable. Most of our lives are forgotten and our contributions lost within a few years of our death. In some cases, these outcomes are the result of explicit choice. But more often these are the unintended consequences of failing to make a choice. In the words of Moses they are the outcome of complacency.

The organization – or individual – that makes a choice and then moves to behave consistently with that choice has a significant advantage over the complacent.

Moses as Strategist

We have been trying to make sense of how Moses became an effective prophet of differentiation.

We have seen how Moses developed a strong sense of his true self. This self-understanding gave him the courage, patience, wisdom, and love to enhance self-understanding across his community.

Moses was never entirely successful. There were always aspects of his true self that were not realized. There were always members of the community and characteristics of his community trapped in distraction in delusion. But the sense of differentiation that was achieved gave both Moses and his community significant comparative advantage. This differentiation is fundamental to the extraordinary sustainability of Moses and his community.

In our next and final consideration we will see how differentiation is the outcome of self and community making strategic choices.

Moses faced extraordinary challenges. He demonstrated the ability to achieve comparative advantage by making clear choices from among tough options. Moses made choices that advanced the integration of belief and behavior. He sought to inspire coherence more than regulate conformance. Moses especially attempted to balance righteousness and justice. In execution of strategy Moses worked to reinforce his own true self and the true self of his enterprise. The fundamental link between righteousness and justice is the foundation of any successful and sustainable strategy.

Sustainable Unique Value

A significant challenge for Starbucks is its emerging ubiquity. Can the variety of personal choices inside Starbucks overcome a growing perception that Starbucks is itself the new generic? Is the differentiation strategy implemented by Starbucks sustainable when the rule-breaker has become the rule-maker?

Starbucks will face new challenges. But their initial differentiation strategy has been proven. It was a big risk, but they chose well, and executed effectively. Their strategy has been sustainable.

Many attempts at differentiation fail because the enterprise cannot afford the costs of differentiation. Early in the new century Mitsubishi Motors focused its marketing on drivers in their 20s and early 30s. Product design and advertising signaled and secured a shared value chain with this audience. In 2002 Mitsubishi Motors joined many of its competitors in offering “zero down, zero interest, zero payments for 12 months.”

The pricing tactic was successful in moving product among the demographic market – young and single – that the differentiation strategy had targeted. This market includes the highest credit risks of any demographic segment. An extraordinary percentage of 2002 buyers failed to honor their loan commitments. Two years later Mitsubishi Motors faced a serious threat to its survival directly related to a successful differentiation strategy.

In the enterprises I have led, I have struggled with effective execution of a differentiation strategy. Most customers have communicated that these enterprises lowered buyers’ costs and increased buyers’ performance. But even when prices are – according to long-time clients – 20 to 30 percent below market averages, we have had difficultly persuading prospective clients (and a few current clients) to recognize this value.

In some cases the unique value offered relates to costs and performance that a client considers peripheral to its core value. This suggests we have not effectively linked value chains and have not done a good job signaling unique value. So far we have been unsuccessful in changing the rules. In seeking strategic advantage I am inclined to pursue differentiation, but because of poor execution the customer base has often remained too shallow to ensure sustainability.

According to Michael Porter, “The sustainability of differentiation depends on two things, its continued perceived value to buyers and the lack of imitation by competitors. There is an ever present risk that buyers’ needs or perceptions will change, eliminating the value of a particular form of differentiation. Competitors may also imitate the firm’s strategy or leapfrog the bases of differentiation the firm has chosen.”

Moses was ready to adjust his tactics and techniques to achieve effective strategic execution. But his fundamental strategy was very consistent. He focused his differentiation strategy on what he understood to be the core human need to love and be loved; to value and be valued. Moses chose to organize around a need so fundamental that there was no risk that the buyers’ needs might change.

In preparing his people for his death, Moses admonished, “You must not distort justice (mishpat); you must not show partiality… Righteousness, only righteousness (tsedeq), you shall pursue.” (Deuteronomy 16:18-20) Righteousness and Justice were the two interlocking strategies that Moses was confident would differentiate his people and provide them a key comparative advantage. Later it was written of God, “Righteousness and Justice are the foundation of your throne, steadfast love and faithfulness go before you.” (Psalm 89: 14)

In the Books of Moses righteousness is evidence of God’s will expressed within the individual. This is the fundamental true self. Justice is evidence of God’s will expressed within community. Justice is the outcome of a harmonious web of human relationships where each true self is valued and respected without partiality. Moses almost certainly understood that these goals would never be fully achieved. But he also perceived that the struggle to achieve these goals would have innate, recognized, and sustainable value.

Most enterprises could choose to organize their strategy around the fundamental human need for a community of true selves. But many enterprises actively choose another path. In our personal relationships we often make a similar choice.

One of the first neuroses identified by Sigmund Freud was the “narcissism of small differences.” This is characterized by behavior where the individual seeks to differentiate him or herself from others through superficial means. I often wear bow-ties. In a healthy person or enterprise, such behavior is a signal of a more substantive source of differentiation. I hope my bow-ties signal a thoughtful non-conformity and creativity. The behavior becomes unhealthy when these signals are the only source of differentiation. I have four or five bow-ties. If I had dozens and agonized over which one to wear I would have slipped from signaling to narcissism.

Too many enterprises depend on the cultivation of narcissism. This approach will occasionally result in significant tactical success. It is, however, a strategic dead-end. The narcissist will never be satisfied and a narcissistic customer has no loyalty. In a market where narcissism is the reigning value there is no sustainable unique value or comparative advantage, there is only churn, mutual destruction, and survival of the last one standing.

Some enterprises – for example prominent advertisers in Vanity Fair – may seem to do very well responding to and encouraging narcissism. But there are very few enterprises or individuals in this sector that achieve sustained success. The executive of a leading cosmetics firm was once asked the secret of its unusually long-term success. He is said to have replied, “I always remember we are not selling colors and fragrance, rather we are selling hope!”

Addressing real and healthy human needs – including our abilities to create, empower, love, refrain, frame, and redeem – is a sustainable path to comparative advantage.

Changing the Rules

To lead effectively you must find your true self. To live authentically you must find your true self. To contribute meaningfully of your true self to others you must find a way to differentiate their perception of you. Through differentiation you allow others to perceive the value you have to offer the relationship. In this way your unique value can enrich a whole community.

In the life of Moses and in the work of Michael Porter we find four shared techniques for achieving strategic differentiation: lowering buyers’ costs, raising buyers’ performance, linking values, and using signals and symbols to communicate value.

But these techniques are not always enough.

Many are insensitive to innate value. This is especially the case with those who have not found their own true selves. If they have been unable to choose and cherish their own unique value they are unlikely to recognize your value. This can be a major impediment and source of constant trouble.

In many cases your unique value will remain unrecognized and underutilized unless a way is found to fundamentally alter the context of the relationship. Whether the relationship is personal or commercial there are times when the existing value chains must be broken up and replaced; only then will it be possible to meaningfully link your value chains with those of the market. This often involves transforming how others perceive themselves. This may even involve helping others embrace their true selves.

Michael Porter explains, “The discovery of an entirely new value chain can unlock possibilities for differentiation… Opportunities to achieve dramatic levels of differentiation often result from reconfiguring the value chain.” Porter outlines several ways to “change the rules to create uniqueness.”

Starbucks changed the rules and essentially created a new category. For several generations small privately owned European cafes have sold good coffee, a pleasant place to meet or privately reflect, and even a statement of personal style… for a price. But in America the café became a diner, a truck stop, or a small restaurant where the coffee’s quality was undermined by a tradition of free refills. In the United States the rules were firmly focused on lowering buyers cost. Even in our most cosmopolitan cities most of the coffee served was generic and weak, but cheap. Ordering a cup of coffee and hanging around was limited mostly to bums and brassy college students.

Starbucks took a risk and stepped into this rule-bound context with something very different. Instead of a choice between regular and de-caf, the buyer is given a mind-boggling range of choices. Instead of large cans of a single generic, Starbucks offers fresh-ground exotics. Instead of Formica and fluorescent, Starbucks offers soft lights, living room sitting and, most recently, WiFi connections. Instead of turning tables, Starbucks aims at repeat sales. Today the risk seems like an inspired yet obvious choice. Given the rules originally in place, the eventual success of Starbucks was anything but obvious.

It helped that a similar model could be seen working in Europe. Starbucks started small and stayed small for a number of years. In this process Starbucks found its true self and remains a strongly value-based enterprise. These values have largely persisted (or been consciously reclaimed), even under the pressure of rapid and significant growth.

Equally important was helping buyers recognize and express their true selves. Starbucks tapped into a fundamental need for human socialization and personally chosen quality in an increasingly generic world. At Starbucks buyers are given a helpful framework within which they are empowered to be creative in making their own choices. Starbucks changed the rules, helped its buyers recognize and claim what they valued, and in the process the enterprise came to be highly valued.

Moses changed the rules: regarding what it meant to be a descendent of Abraham, regarding what it meant to be a human being, and regarding the nature of God. In changing the rules – and in creating a framework of innate value – Moses implemented his differentiation strategy.

Symbols and Signals

In pursuing differentiation a firm must not only lower buyers’ cost and/or increase buyers’ performance. It must also ensure that the value produced by the firm is linked to value that the buyer recognizes. Without this recognition, the value does not have impact.

Porter explains, “Buyers… frequently do not fully understand all the ways in which a supplier actually or potentially might lower their costs or improve performance – that is, buyers often do not know what they should be looking for in a supplier… The buyer’s perception of a firm and its product, therefore, can be as important as the reality of what the firm offers in determining the effective level of differentiation achieved… Buyers will not pay for value that they do not perceive, no matter how real it may be… A firm that delivers only modest value but signals it more effectively may actually command a higher price than a firm that delivers higher value but signals it poorly.” (Porter, Michael E.; Competitive Advantage, Free Press, 1985)

Signaling is especially important when dealing with intangible value, future value, or value that is difficult to measure. In education learner satisfaction and learning efficacy do not always travel together. When new concepts or processes are introduced there can often be an inverse correlation between satisfaction and efficacy. Early in a successful educational program the buyer will often perceive failure, unless an effective means is discovered of signaling the future value being delivered.

There is a similar challenge in adoption of many technology products. Well-designed technology lowers buyers’ costs or increases buyers’ performance by changing buyers’ behavior. But there is a cost – often a high social cost – in achieving the initial change in behavior that will produce the value. In many cases the technology “fails” because it is never truly adopted. It is not adopted because the initial cost of changing behavior is underestimated – or purposefully obscured – and becomes a major impediment to adoption.

In the late 1970s I was responsible for introducing an early word-processing system into a mid-sized professional firm. The principal benefit of the system was to allow the professionals who authored documents to also personally finalize edits and be responsible for the final product. This increased the speed of producing documents and, usually, improved the accuracy of final documents. The professionals – all of whom were proficient typists – generally welcomed the new technology.

The secretaries were much more skeptical. There was a nearly one-to-one-ratio of professionals to secretaries. A core value produced by the secretaries was the time consuming process of retyping various drafts on their state-of-the-art IBM Selectrics. The word processing system was seen as a threat to their employment future. Given their prominence in the office and their long-time relationship with key professionals, the secretaries could have significantly complicated adoption of the word-processing system.

About six months before the technology was installed we began a process of retraining the secretaries as “account associates.” In this new role the secretaries were focused on research, some client service, and document management. We invested in the creation of an in-office research library and crafted business relationships with public and university libraries (well before the Internet, much less Google). In a variety of ways we signaled and symbolized that the secretaries, until then part of a self-contained and quickly capped career-track, were to be integrated into the professional career-track, would be assured of good jobs, and would be expected to contribute in significant ways to the firm’s productivity.

Less than two years later traditional secretarial duties, measured in time expended, had been reduced by approximately two-thirds, revenues had nearly doubled, and most of the secretarial staff had been transitioned into much more value-producing (and usually more satisfying) roles. The word processing system contributed to this outcome. Without the technology, the transition would not have been possible. But the technology was the easy part. The hard part was designing and executing the human transition that would accompany the technology.

The new technology was the explicit value – and threat – perceived. The new behavior was the implicit value – and most important value – offered. To convert the secretaries from skeptics to buyers, we had to credibly signal future value. We could not deliver future value immediately. Until the new technology was fully adopted, creation of future value was not possible. Our credible signals and symbols of future value built a bridge to the future and the reality of increased value.

In my experience many business people – and especially business men – are incompetent in the use of signals and symbols. They either avoid symbols as “too soft” or “unreal” or they use signals that are not linked to substantive issues of cost or performance. As a result they come off as cold and uncaring or superficial and hypocritical.

Porter argues that signals must be tightly related to the cost and performance criteria that matter most to the buyers. “Signaling criteria can be identified by understanding the process the buyer uses to form judgments about a firm’s potential ability to meet use criteria, as well as how well it is actually meeting them. Examining each use criteria is a good place to start… Like use criteria, signaling criteria should be defined as precisely and operationally as possible in order to guide differentiation strategy.”

Prior to the encounter at Mt. Sinai God is characterized primarily by direct action. Following Mt. Sinai the nature of God is increasingly communicated through symbols and signals. Much of the last half of Exodus is taken up with instruction regarding the application of symbols and signals.

Late in his life Moses assured his people of future value by reminding them of past signs and symbols that had been fulfilled:
He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock, in the land which He swore to your forefathers to give you… You shall be blessed above all peoples… You shall well remember what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt: the great trials which your eyes saw and the signs and symbols and the mighty hand and the outstretched arm by which the Lord your God brought you out. (Deuteronomy 7:13-19)

In the Books of Moses the Hebrew מופת or mowpheth is translated as symbol. It is also often translated as wonder or miracle. The word for sign can also mean omen or remembrance, warning or proof. A thoughtful and substantive use of signs and symbols is crucial to the creation of recognized and differentiated value. Well-chosen and carefully used signs and symbols can do miraculous work.

Linking Values

Moses has a product he desperately wants his people to choose and cherish. The product has innate value and offers substantial benefits. Despite the quality of the product, the market is reluctant, skeptical, and inclined to choose low quality substitutes.

Moses works hard to demonstrate how his product can reduce the buyers’ costs and increase the buyers’ performance. In this process he is making links between the values and activities of God with the values and activities of the chosen people. He is trying to demonstrate that “I am Who I am” is uniquely powerful, uniquely loving, uniquely just. Moses is seeking to persuade his people that the God of their ancestors is not just one of many possible gods, but is absolutely differentiated from all other gods, is the one true God of the universe, and is their unique source of meaning and purpose.

Moses can observe that assurance of meaning and purpose is valued by his people. In what they say and do, they want and need what God is offering. But, still, it is challenging to link the values – even when what is valued is fundamentally shared.

Porter writes, “The starting point for understanding what is valuable to the buyer is the buyer’s value chain. Buyers have value chains consisting of activities they perform just as a firm does… The buyer’s value chain determines the way in which a firm’s product is actually used as well as the firm’s other effects on the buyer’s activities. These determine the buyer’s needs and are the underpinnings of buyer value and differentiation.” (Porter, Michael E.; Competitive Advantage, Free Press, 1985)

My firm’s principal value-delivered – reflecting its true self – is learning efficacy. But many of our clients have only a passing interest in evidence of real learning. In most markets “education” is seen as a viable product whether or not the delivery results in learning. The quicker, cheaper, and easier education can be delivered, regardless of actual impact, the happier many of our clients will be. But this low expectation regarding learning translates into a tendency to low-ball budgets. The disconnect between what we value and what many clients value is clearly disadvantageous to the firm.

Almost all of our clients, however, place high value on increasing their budgets. This is often the preeminent activity in their value chain. Recognizing this buyer value, we have also observed that many of our clients depend on PowerPoint presentations to argue for their budgets. As a result, we have increasingly used PowerPoint presentations to report on learning efficacy. We produce these PowerPoints with the buyers’ funders in mind. This tends to encourage our buyers to use learning efficacy – and the same PowerPoints – as an argument to justify increased funding, which, if successful, tends to encourage our buyers to give greater value to our firm’s core value in learning efficacy.

We place high value on learning efficacy. Many of our clients place high value on generating higher budgets. By making it easy for our clients to see and use a relationship between what we value and what they value, we create a greater sense of shared value, and better position our product as having unique value.

This one linkage is not enough to create a sustained strategic advantage. We must make similar links with a wide variety of buyer activities. As Porter explains,“Differentiation… stems from the specific activities the firm performs and how they affect the buyer. Differentiation grows out of the firm’s value chain. Virtually any value activity is a potential source of uniqueness.” The more links in the value chain that the supplier and buyer clearly share, the stronger the supplier’s strategic advantage.

What do you do? How you actually behave is the best evidence of what you value. How are your various activities linked? Are they linked? How do the links impact your results? Try to map out your value chain – the sequence of behavior – that results in your “product.”

What does your client do? How are your client’s activities linked? Try to map out your client’s value chain. Where can you forge a connection between links in your value chain and links in your client’s value chain?

After the debacle at Mt. Sinai – with the chosen people fleeing from their loving creator – Moses and God substantially adjust their approach. In place of thunder, lighting, trumpets, smoke, and devouring fire – a veritable volcano of a God – Moses receives instructions to craft an exquisite tabernacle of fine wood, precious stones, and rare metals in which God will dwell among the people in a tent.(Exodus 25) Talk about strategic repositioning.

From this Ark of the Covenant, made of acacia wood, God will travel with the chosen people, and meet with Moses “face to face, as one who speaks to a friend,” (Exodus 33: 11) and in this less dramatic way build a relationship with the whole community. The buyers no longer have direct access, but through Moses there is significant indirect access. The power available is still the same, but the packaging is much less intimidating. The God of the tabernacle is just as responsive to the profound needs of the people as the God of the fiery mountain, but the subtle mystery of the tabernacle is, evidently, more acceptable than the full power of the volcano.

Throughout the Bible we can perceive God working to link our value chain to the source of ultimate value. It remains the buyer’s choice. But God is trying to make it easy for the buyer.

Raising Buyer Performance

For the last decade I have focused most of my professional life on Network Based Learning, where web-based technologies are used to facilitate problem-solving. The technologies available for this purpose are enticing. There is an ongoing temptation to enhance the performance of web-based learning products far beyond what the buyer values.

Several potential competitors have disappeared as they have invested heavily in gee-whiz technology that has clearly increased the potential performance of their product, but in ways that have little or no impact on the buyers’ performance. Just as we tend to focus on our own internal costs, there is a tendency to focus on our own performance. Porter pushes us, instead, to seek strategic advantage by focusing on our buyers’ performance.

Raising buyer performance will depend on understanding what is desirable performance from the buyer’s viewpoint… For industrial, commercial and institutional buyers… the needs of the buyer’s buyer must be understood, requiring the same analysis as the analysis of buyer value… Raising performance of industrial, commercial, or institutional buyers can also be based on helping them meet their noneconomic goals such as status, image, or prestige… For products sold to consumers, raising performance will be a function of better satisfying needs.

From its earliest days Intel has tended to define performance in terms of speed and power. But in recent years the company has begun to make what insiders call a sharp “right hand turn.”

In 2004 Intel focused on a new chip whose principal feature is to extend the range of wireless connections. According to the New York Times Paul S. Otellini, President and COO realized, and persuaded the company, that “producing a chip that could process data at, say, 3.6 megahertz rather than 3.4, was not nearly as important as making chips with built-in WiFi, thereby saving consumers from having to add hardware to the PC’s…Through most of Intel’s history, every new product followed a simple pattern: the engineers figured out what was possible and then told the marketing department what to sell. The company understood the importance of consumer focus groups, and employed ethnographers to study how people use computers, but their influence was minimal before Mr. Otellini took charge of the chip-making division. ‘We turned the process on its head,’ he said.”

Intel is beginning to redefine performance as a marketing issue rather than an engineering issue. Performance is being defined by buyers and in the process Intel is extending its strategic advantage.

Seven weeks after leaving Egypt the descendents of Jacob arrive at Mt. Sinai. Moses works to prepare the whole people to be meet God. We read:

On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, as well as a thick cloud on the mountain, and a blast of a trumpet so loud that all the people who were in the camp trembled. Moses brought the people out of camp to meet God. They took their stand at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the Lord had descended upon it in fire; he smoke went up like the smoke a of a kiln, while the whole mountain shook violently. As the blast of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses would speak and God would answer him in thunder. When the Lord summoned Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down and warn the people not to break through to the Lord to look; otherwise many of them will perish.” (Exodus 19:16-21)

The Lord need not have worried. According to tradition by the time the second commandment was announced the people were pleading to leave and asking Moses to serve as their intermediary. “When all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, they were afraid and trembled and stood at a distance, and said to Moses, ‘You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we will die.” (Exodus 20: 18-19)

The target market was given the chance for direct access to full value and enormous power. Clearly God and Moses anticipated the market would benefit from and appreciate the high performance opportunity. But no, the market was intimidated. The market did not know what to do with the full power made available to it. The market preferred to have the power filtered through a kind of middleware. God and Moses adapted their product to reflect the kind of performance the buyers valued and were prepared to engage.

The old saying, “the buyer is always right,” is misleading. Buyers are often lazy, self-indulgent, reluctant to change, and unable to recognize high quality even when it is delivered to them on a silver platter. Designers, engineers, and other professionals who have committed their lives to a product-line are often right about what has innate value and the buyer is often wrong. But it is not an issue of right and wrong. It is an issue of readiness, acceptance, and willingness to buy.

Even Moses – even God – adapted his offering to the kind of performance that the buyer was ready to value.

Lowering Buyers Costs

Tactical and short-term advantage can be achieved by lowering production cost through greater operational effectiveness. In a competitive environment, all firms are encouraged to maximize operational effectiveness. As a result, operational effectiveness is a necessary but insufficient condition for achieving strategic and long-term advantage.

It is, however, also possible to lower costs in ways that transcend operational effectiveness. Such methods can significantly differentiate the enterprise. If this differentiation is sustainable, it will produce a strategic advantage.

In business – and perhaps in much of life – we usually define cost as the value we must give up in order to generate a product or service. This cost informs our pricing. But Porter encourages us to also consider the cost customers experience that goes beyond our price. What is the customer’s cost to access and use your product or service? If you can reduce the overall cost to the customer, you should be able to achieve a strategic advantage.

Hertz has lowered my cost of accessing their services. Through their Hertz Gold program I save a great deal of time and time is a cost to which I am very sensitive. Unfortunately for Hertz this service is highly replicable. Most other rental agencies have an identical service. Hertz has been attentive to my indirect costs of accessing their service, but their response is not differentiated, and does not create a strategic advantage.

My wife purchased her car – that she loves – from a dealership that seems unable to conveniently schedule regular service. She has observed that the dealership from which we purchased my car is friendly, flexible, and accessible. I always deal with the same service manager. I am regularly advised of upcoming service needs and costs. The service-oriented dealership has created for itself a significant strategic advantage in terms of our next car purchase. We will pay a premium price to enjoy a lower overall cost, where cost is determined by price, hassle-factor, and time expended. The buyers’ cost is more than your price.

My wife and I do most of our banking with the nation’s largest financial institution: Bank of America. But really we bank with Doris. Our bank has changed hands several times. Doris has provided continuity and personalized service. When the huge institutional system breaks-down – as it often does – we call Doris to fix it. If Doris would move, we would try to move our banking with her, despite all of the direct costs of doing so, because working with Doris saves us so many indirect costs. I worry about what will happen when Doris retires. But as long as Bank of America has Doris – or can develop new generations of Doris-like professionals – they have a significant strategic advantage in capturing our business.

Michael Porter explains, “In seeking opportunities to lower buyer costs, a firm must chart in detail how its product moves through or affects the buyer’s value chain, including the buyer’s inventory, handling, technology development, and administrative activities. It must also be familiar with all other products or inputs its product is used with, and understand how its product interfaces with them. The firm must also identify every other value activity in its value chain that affects the buyer’s chain.” (Porter, Michael E.; Competitive Advantage, Free Press, 1985)

Throughout the Exodus story Moses – or God working through Moses – is constantly providing products and services for which the “customers” do not directly return value. Manna from heaven, water from a rock, and military victory can be seen as loss-leading investments to create and preserve a market. In part this demonstrates a problem in making an analogy between the product that God offers and that offered in a commercial setting. God’s bottom-line has a different definition of profit and loss than our own.

But God is certainly promoting a product – a way of living – and Moses is a kind of Chief Operating Officer, product manager, and salesman rolled into one. Again and again, Moses positions the product as responding to real needs, improves access to the product, and even suggests variety in some aspects of the product that customers otherwise would not recognize. Given the promised – and demonstrated – benefits, Moses keeps the buyers costs very low.

Despite the innate value of the product – and the skill of Moses in positioning the product – it is still misunderstood and undervalued by many customers. The product is simply rejected by a significant proportion of the market. Fantastic service is quickly taken for granted. The experience of Moses is worth remembering the next time you grow frustrated in opening a new market.

On more than one occasion God is ready to give up on the chosen target market and start-over from scratch (Exodus 32: 9-14), but Moses successfully argues it is still possible to achieve the goals set out at Mt. Horeb. From time to time God does, in fact, eliminate a portion of the market that has proven itself absolutely insensitive to the value being offered. (Exodus 32: 35) But, all-in-all, the story of Exodus can be seen as a very successful effort to cultivate a long-term supplier-customer relationship. The shared value chains now extend over 3000 years.

Identifying what Others Value

Michael Porter’s theory of differentiation requires close attention to what he calls the value chain or value activities.

Ultimately, all differences between companies in cost or price derive from the hundreds of activities requires to create, produce, sell, and deliver their products or services, such as calling on customers, assembling final products, and training employees. Cost is generated by performing activities, and cost advantage arises from performing particular activities more efficiently than competitors. Similarly, differentiation arises from both the choice of activities and how they are performed. Activities, then, are the basic units of comparative advantage. Overall advantage or disadvantage results from all a company’s activities, not only few. (Porter Michael, What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, November-December 1996)

We are what we choose to do.

Reducing cost through increased efficiency is a defensive game. It may be a very effective game in the short-term, but it does not produce a sustainable long-term advantage. Operational efficiency and effectiveness – the foundation of cost competition – is replicable by many competitors. While some competitors will fail to meet industry benchmarks, others will succeed and eliminate your cost advantage.

Operational effectiveness is necessary, but alone it will not create strategic advantage. Porter writes, “Competition based on operational effectiveness alone is mutually destructive, leading to wars of attrition that can be arrested only by limiting competition… Continuous improvement has been etched on managers’ brains. But its tools unwittingly draw companies toward imitation and homogeneity. Gradually, managers have let operational effectiveness supplant strategy. The result is zero-sum competition, static or declining prices, and pressures on costs that compromise companies’ ability to invest in the business for the long term.”

To achieve a sustainable strategic advantage there is a need to decrease cost or increase value delivered in a manner that goes beyond efficiency and clearly differentiates one enterprise from another. Porter makes the point that this kind of strategic differentiation is helpful to customers, helpful to the differentiated enterprise, and can result in a much more stable structure for the entire community of competitors.

But simply being different is not good enough. Eccentricity is not a strategy. To effectively involve others in pursuing goals and engaging troubles – yours or their own – it is necessary to be different in a way that is recognized as valuable.

Porter argues that “strategic positions can be based on customers’ needs, customers’ accessibility, or the variety of a company’s products or services.” In each case, choosing a sustainable strategy requires understanding what the customer values. Not every form of greater access is valued. More and more variety can actually confuse and frustrate. Even authentic responses to real needs can sometimes be discounted.

A high percentage of people with chronic disease fail to observe simple protocols for drug use that will improve their lives and even save their lives. These customers do not value what they need. Most of these people are more likely to consume what they need if the protocols are reinforced by personal communications with health-providers, volunteers, family members or others. Participation in user groups will also encourage most people to engage their troubles more effectively. The social interaction is highly valued, even while the life-saving product is undervalued.

You can discover what others value by observing what they choose to do.

Early in my career a client, specifically a Senior Vice President for Marketing, hired the firm I was with to assess how the enterprise could increase market penetration. The client was closely owned but managed by professionals. The Chairman of the Board was one of the owners and represented the owners’ interests. During the analysis and consultation I met twice with this man. The Chairman’s interaction with me was polite, vague, and rather banal. I wrote him off as a largely uninvolved watchdog who would support any decision that would increase profits.

My final presentation to the executive team was straightforward. Both product studies and market studies pointed to the same set of choices. Greater market penetration was possible, the risks were low, the necessary investments affordable, and the likelihood of sustaining the increased market position was strong. Well before I was two-thirds through the presentation, it was clear the findings were in serious trouble. The Chairman’s questions and comments were skeptical, grumpy, and increasingly angry. He did not value greater market penetration. Rather, he feared it. The fact that our study had found it was possible was a negative.

Shortly after the presentation the Senior Vice President “resigned.” My firm was not retained for further work. The enterprise continued to pursue its traditional market. A quarter century later it continues to be a small player in what appears to be a sustainable market.

I had failed to accurately define my client. I had failed to even ask what my real client valued. I had offered a solution to a problem that the client did not recognize. Precisely because my “answers” were straightforward – even obvious – I should have asked myself why the client had not already embraced at least some of the answers. Why is the client behaving as it is? What should that behavior tell me about what the client values? How can I frame my choices to fit the choices my client is already making?

Today I perceive that the Chairman had a very clear sense of his true self and what he valued in the true self of his enterprise. He was not especially articulate or forthcoming, but neither did I probe very effectively. The assignment I was given could have contributed to the true self that the Chairman had in mind. It did not because I was insensitive to my client’s definition of value.

Moses was a much wiser man. When Moses was given his assignment on Mt. Horeb we certainly would empathize if he had simply said, “yes sir” and scurried away to make sense of the assignment without the intimidating thornbush flaming away. Instead, he anticipated the troubles ahead and pushed God to help him deal with the reality he perceived.

God promises Moses, “I will be with you.” (Exodus 3:12)… “But Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the Israelites and say to them, “The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,” and they ask me “What is his name?” What shall I say to them?” (Exodus 3: 13) Moses is trying to better understand the motivation behind this assignment. What is the identity of – the nature of God – and what does this identity suggest about the origins and intent of the assignment? What does the boss value? God answers. Moses listens and seems ready to accept the intention he perceives. Then Moses shifts his attention to how this assignment may be received by his “clients.” Moses speculates to God, “But suppose they do not believe me or listen to me, but say, “The Lord did not appear to you.” (Exodus 4:1) Moses needs sources of authority and legitimacy. He pushes for it. God gives Moses tools that will help him communicate the credibility and value of what is offered to the Israelites.

Finally Moses turns to his own skills and capacity. He reminds God that he is not an eloquent speaker. At this point God is getting impatient with the push-backs and commands, “Now go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you are to speak.” But Moses knows himself too well to accept this brush-off. We read Moses saying, “’O my Lord, please send someone else.’ Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses.” How many of us know ourselves so well that we would argue in this way with our secular boss, not to speak of God? But in the Exodus story God relents and assigns Aaron as spokesperson and deputy to Moses.

Moses gave careful attention to each aspect of the value equation: internal value, external value, and personal value. Unless the value we deliver is responsive to the value that others expect and respect, it is not – in fact – valuable. Unless the value is consistent with our true self, we will be unable to deliver the value.

Applying Value

In the last forty years of his life Moses found his true self. Each choice he made that was consistent with this true self brought greater strength, both to himself and his community. Moses was not free of doubt, he argued with God, he made mistakes, and sometimes he chose badly. But with each good choice he created greater possibilities.

In the process Moses became a great leader. He overcame powerful adversaries. He kept his people focused on long-term objectives. He introduced an effective strategic framework that continues to be used by individuals and enterprises centuries later. He created the future. Moses chose God’s will, and God blessed Moses.

But this did not guarantee success or result in an easy life. Moses faced all the typical challenges – and more – of any leader. There were several external threats. But it was internal dissatisfaction and dissension that preoccupied Moses. Even late in his life Moses continued to be troubled by his “stiff-necked,” “foolish and senseless,” “perverse and crooked” people. Moses tended not to focus on the external threats ahead but, rather, on the persistent internal threats that could undermine how the external threats would be engaged.

Some religious traditions teach the transcendence of trouble. They hold out the promise of an earthly paradise. This is not the story of Moses. The books of Moses are full of trouble. The life of Moses is an example of how one engages – not escapes – from trouble. Becoming his true self was the foundation for dealing with trouble, but was not sufficient. Moses had to develop and deploy sources of comparative advantage in dealing with both internal and external threats.

Knowing and being his true self – creating, empowering, loving, refraining, framing, and redeeming – gave Moses real power and significant potential. But how these strengths are used to engage trouble is where potential becomes reality. The most poignant failures – personal or commercial – are often the result of great strengths that are not applied, and sometimes not even recognized.

Innate value is not always recognized value. In the 1950s U.S. private railways might have recognized their great strength as trusted purveyors of personal transportation and begun to offer air travel as well as rail travel. They might have integrated air and rail travel for an even more convenient and cost-effective system than we have today. But the rail companies did not use this strength and were eliminated from the long-distance travel sector. With its origins in catalogue sales, Sears might have been an early adopter of e-commerce. Instead this is yet another commercial channel Sears has largely yielded to Walmart and others. How many times have you met individuals with impressive talents that are astoundingly underutilized? Examples of lost potential are pervasive.

Becoming your true self is innately valuable. A community or enterprise that crafts a true self has enormous potential. But to fulfill this potential the true self must be applied to solving problems, engaging troubles, and making the future.

Moses applied his true self through a variety of techniques. Many of these techniques reflect key components of differentiation identified by Michael Porter, a professor at the Harvard Business School. The behavior of Moses and Porter’s theory especially overlap in the following seven areas:

• Identifying what others value;
• Lowering buyers cost;
• Raising buyers performance;
• Linking your value with what others value;
• Using symbols and signals to give tangible meaning to intangible value;
• Changing the rules; and
• Ensuring sustainable unique value.

If you feel unappreciated by your spouse, if you are undervalued by your clients, if your customers do not see a difference between you and your competitors, it may be the result of not living consistently with your true self. It may be that you are undermining your core value with bad choices.

But we see in the life of Moses a profoundly true self who was still the target of complaints, abuse, and rejection. Moses responded with what Michael Porter calls a “differentiation strategy.” An effective differentiation strategy will result in recognition that you, or your enterprise, are unique at something that is valuable to the audience that matters to you: spouse, clients, children, customers, neighbors, voters, or whoever.

An effective differentiation strategy will not eliminate all troubles. But it will provide a means for engaging those troubles in a way that reinforces your true self and moves you – and potentially your community – forward in an Exodus-like journey to your ultimate goals.

As Moses demonstrates, this unique value must be consistent with your true self. This strategy is absolutely not about being all things to all people. But it does mean expressing your true self in ways that are sensitive to the needs, wants, and current conditions of others. It is a way of applying the profound potential of your true self in reaching out to, helping, serving, and leading others.

Moses Creates and Communicates Differentiated Value

Since February 1 we have considered how Moses recognized the spiritual and practical potential of differentiation. We have seen how a leader can use a group's stories, origins, failure, purpose, promise, and transcedent potential to create a readiness for and recognition of differentiation.

Next we reviewed six habits of differentiation: creating, empowering, loving, refraining, framing, and redeeming. Consistently practiced, these habits produce a powerfully differentiated identity.

Once we have found our true-self - a uniqely differentiated individual - we can seek fulfillment in relationship with others by consistently applying seven techniques:

1. Identifying what others value,
2. Lowering the cost of others,
3. Raising the performance of others,
4. Linking your value with what others value,
5. Using signals and symbols to clarify your value,
6. Changing the rules regarding what is valued, and
7. Ensuring sustainable unique value.

I Am Who I Am

In the Books of Moses the framework for fulfillment – the means for individuals and organizations to claim their true self – includes six fundamental characteristics: creating, empowering, loving, refraining, framing, and redeeming. These are among the principal characteristics of God. Because we are created in God’s image and likeness they are among our principal characteristics. Our true self – as individuals or a community – will be bound up in living coherently with these characteristics.

We could be even more reductionist. We are meant to be creators. An early commentary on the Torah taught:

Everything that God,
The source and substance of all,
Creates in this world flows naturally from the essence of God’s divine nature.

Creation is not a choice but a necessity.
It is God’s nature to unfold time and space.

Creation is the extension of God.
Creation is God encountered in time and space.
Creation is the infinite in the garb of the finite.

To attend to creation is to attend to God.
To attend to the moment is to attend to eternity.
To attend to the part is to attend to the whole.
To attend to Reality is to live constructively. (Pirke Avot, Chapters of the Fathers, 6:2)

What we create we are inclined to value. Because it is our creation we delight in it and may value it as much as we value ourselves, which is Rollo May’s definition of love. In love we empower, in love we refrain from interfering with the others freedom to choose, in love we create and apply frameworks to inform our choices (and the choices of our beloved), and through these choices we are able to find fulfillment, and even to reclaim our identity from bad choices.

During his encounter with the burning bush, Moses asked to be told the name – really the identity – of God. Moses was told “I am Who I am” (Exodus 3:14) or, in some translations, “I will Be what I will Be.” Rabbi Joseph Telushkin offers that the phrase can also mean “I shall be as I shall Act.”(Talushkin, Joseph; Biblical Literacy)

The tense of God’s name – present or future – has been argued over with a depth of emotion and division that religious controversies seem especially to spawn. Given the all-encompassing nature of God, I advocate giving equal attention to both present and future. The ancient Hebrew texts capture this in the name given to God by the early writers: YHVH. Rabbi David Aaron explains that this is “an amalgam of the verb ‘to be’ in the past, present and future – was/is/and/will be.”

Peter Drucker argues that the fundamental role of management is to create the future. This is done through strategic planning, what Drucker calls the “entrepreneurial skill.” Further Drucker gives particular emphasis to the creative tension between the present and the future. He writes, “The future will not just happen if one wishes hard enough. It requires decision – now. It imposes risk – now. It requires action – now. It demands allocation of resources, and above all, of human resources – now. It requires work – now… There are plans that lead to action today – and they are true plans, true strategic decisions. And there are plans that talk about action tomorrow – they are dreams, if not pretexts for non-thinking, nonplanning, and nondoing. The essence of planning is to make present decisions with knowledge of their futurity.” (Drucker, Peter; Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices). We create the future by making choices now.

We are each in a process of becoming. It is always so. Each new moment presents new opportunities, new threats, and new choices. We choose – even if we choose by avoiding decision – and the consequences of our choice contribute to a new creation.

In leading and managing an enterprise we face the same reality. Drucker writes, “We must make the present create the future.” This is the fundamental task of the enterprise. This task will preoccupy the leaders of the enterprise and defines the most important contribution that can be made to the enterprise by any of its stakeholders. The creation of a sustainable future requires that we make choices coherent with our true selves: creating, empowering, loving, refraining, framing, and redeeming.

Redeeming

But as the Books of Moses so clearly demonstrate, even the most inspired leader with the best frameworks will face lack of understanding, non-cooperation, and even outright rebellion. Individuals lose their way. Organizations choose the wrong path. Persistent pursuit of purpose is not always the quickest way to the Promised Land. Even good choices can result in failure.

Yet it is possible to move on. It is possible to recover. Devastating loss and enormous pain can be overcome. At the beginning of what would be a forty year trek through the wilderness, Moses sang a hymn with these words, “In your steadfast love you led the people who you redeemed; you guided them by your strength to your holy abode.” (Exodus 15: 13) Moses perceived that God was reclaiming the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They had sold their inheritance to the Egyptians in exchange for temporary security. God came to reclaim ownership and to allow the nation of Israel to reclaim its true self.

The ability to recover from failure is an essential element of personal and professional effectiveness. In business circles, rather than redemption (too religious?) or recovery (too much emphasis on failure?), the favored term is resilience.

Diane Coutu, a senior editor at Harvard Business Review, writes that among individuals and organizations that survive failure and go on to thrive, there is “a cool, almost pessimistic sense of reality.” She goes onto explain, “Perhaps you are asking yourself, ‘Do I truly understand – and accept – the reality of my situation? Does my organization?’ Those are good questions, particularly because research suggests most people slip into denial as a coping mechanism. Facing reality, really facing it, is grueling work.” (Coutou, Diane L.; How Resilience Works, Harvard Business Review, May 2002

In addition to a fundamental realism, Coutou found two other common characteristics of resilient organizations and individuals: the ability to make meaning and the ability to make do. She writes, “The most successful organizations and people possess strong value systems. Strong values infuse an environment with meaning because they offer ways to interpret and shape events.”

My undergraduate college is a bit more than 150 years old. At least once in every generation it has faced down being closed. The principal tools of survival have been a sense of unique mission and meaning. Many stakeholders in the college have seen it as a crucial source of meaning in their own lives. If the college closed a whole web of meaning and memory would close with it. As a result, in times of crisis the college has survived by redeeming tokens of value it transferred to its alumni and others over the years. The college is never more attentive to its heritage and inherited culture than when it is in most trouble. At this point, the noble and courageous ability to recover may be, if anything, too much a part of the institution’s self-definition. It would be better for the college to recognize reality sooner and thereby reduce its dependence on redeeming value.

Resilient people and organizations make do, they are inventive, and they are creative. They grapple with reality by creating something new in response to the threat. In its most recent struggle to survive my alma mater reconceived its entire approach to tuition and financial aid. It communicated its policy changes in terms of a differentiated value that went well beyond price. It created meaning. As a result, it substantially and effectively differentiated itself in the market. This creative response generated strongly positive media and helped recruit one of the largest freshmen classes in the institution’s history.

We can survive failure and go on to thrive by being realistic, making meaning of our failure, and being creative. We may lose our way, but we always retain the ability to redeem our true self.

Framing

Not interfering with another’s freedom to choose is, however, very different from neglect. The power to choose is strengthened by being aware of the range of options available and any past experience with these options. We generally organize our experience into frameworks. Around the tribal fire and the water cooler and now in digital chat rooms, humans share frameworks as a way of exploring and deciding what to do.

The Books of Moses are also known as the Books of Law. The Ten Commandments are specific rules that create broad frameworks to inform individual choice. They set out the simple rules that will guide good choices. These frameworks, as already noted, can empower creativity and personal choice.

Creating such frameworks is another fundamental aspect of the human character. We are predisposed to reflect on our experiences, perceive patterns in our experiences, and derive principles from these patterns to guide future choice. Our minds, operating as story-engines, are alert to analogy and metaphor. We draw lessons from past experiences and use these lessons to frame how we address new problems. We often frame our current condition in terms of past experiences.

The more experiences we have, the more diverse our collection of analogies and metaphors, and the more subtle we can be in discerning the nature of our experiences and finding the best analogies and metaphors. When frames are used mostly to connect experiences, rather than separate experiences, they can be very helpful tools for problem-solving.

Again and again, God offers and Moses communicates a set of effective frameworks. Again and again the chosen people experiment with other frameworks and suffer the consequences. Toward the end of his life, Moses remarks:

The Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all your undertakings… when you obey the Lord your God by observing his commandments and decrees that are written in this book of the law, because you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Surely this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. It is not to heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?...” No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe. (Deuteronomy 30: 8-14)

Based on their experiences, the effective frameworks are already known or can be known. Behaving consistently with the frameworks is a choice. Business leadership and management are both aimed at influencing this choice.

Among the principal roles of the business executive are the identification, communication, and encouragement to observe effective frameworks. John Kotter, a long-time professor at the Harvard Business School, notes that leadership and management are both focused on essentially the same three organizational activities: each “involves deciding what needs to be done, creating networks of people and relationships that can accomplish an agenda, and then trying to ensure that those people actually do the job.” (Kotter, John; What Leaders Really Do, Harvard Business Review, December 2001)

According to Kotter the leader must set a direction, “developing a vision of the future (often the distant future) along with strategies for producing the changes needed to achieve that vision.” The business leader must also align people. “This means communicating the new direction to those who can create coalitions that understand the vision and are committed to its achievement.” Finally the leader must motivate. The effective executive persuades people that the direction set out is worth their attention and the proposed frameworks are worth disciplined observance. Kotter notes that the leader motivates by “appealing to basic but often untapped human needs, values, and emotions.” In all of these actions the leader is trying to frame and explain reality. In outlining this three step system, Kotter is trying to offer us a helpful framework.

Moses communicated a long-term vision, he aligned people and alliances that were committed to the vision, and he worked to motivate broad enthusiasm for the vision. This is a framework for our own effective action. Fundamental to this blog is a notion that we can find in the ancient wisdom of the Bible the basis for creating effective frameworks for our personal and professional lives. Creating and using frameworks is fundamental to your true self.

Refraining

The divine self-description given to Moses begins with an emphasis on love and forgiveness, but ends with a statement that on first reading seems paradoxical or simply contradictory:

Yet by no means clearing the guilty, But visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children to the third and fourth generation.

How does this relate to the forgiving, loving God already described? These are words worth a struggle. Biblical scholar Adam Clarke suggests that a literal translation of the first clause is “in clearing he will not clear.” Further, in the second clause “visiting” strikes most English readers as an active verb. One modern translation (The Bible in Basic English) renders this clause as “will send punishment on children for the sins of their fathers.” Yet the Hebrew, paqad, that is translated as visiting is much more passive in tone than send, meaning to pay attention to, or be listed, or numbered, or watched over.

Three sources of guilt are listed: iniquity, transgression, and sin. The Hebrew for iniquity in this case is ‘avon, which can also mean perversity. ‘Avon is derived from the primitive ‘avah which means to be distorted or twisted, altered from an original form. Transgression, the Hebrew pesha, is derived from the root pasha and involves being in rebellion. Sin, or chatta’ah, is derived from chatah which means to miss, miss the mark, to miss oneself, lose oneself, or wander from the way and become lost.

To look at God’s entire monologue again, we might have it read:

The Lord, the Lord,
A God merciful and gracious,
Slow to anger
And abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
Keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
Forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin,
Yet in forgiving, not forgiving those who insist on distorting their true self, rebelling against their original purpose, and losing their true identity.
Those choosing to be lost will be used as an example to their children and their children’s children to the third and fourth generation.

When I took high school Latin I can recall Miss Tapper occasionally responding to my earnest efforts with, “That is a very free translation sir” But she usually agreed I captured the original intent. Assuming this paraphrase of Exodus has some integrity, what does it tell us of God, the image and likeness in which we were created?

Love does not interfere with the beloved’s freedom to choose.

As a parent, spouse, and friend we learn early and often that true love can mean restraining our inclination to interfere. True love often refrains from action. In love we accept the beloved, even when the beloved – in our perspective – is clearly going the wrong way. We will even refrain from expressing our fundamental character, in order to create a space where the beloved can find and express his or her own character.

Finding our true self will sometimes involve losing our self, choosing the wrong path, and going astray. We will also allow our beloved this freedom.

I would use very different language to describe it, but I practice similar restraint in developing my most talented colleagues. More frightening is when I have to refrain from interfering with clients who persist in bad choices. We can learn from our mistakes. We learn much more from making our own choices than following the instructions of others. Principles, frameworks, and guidance can all be offered. But if I truly value the colleague or client, and his or her development, I must be willing to allow the colleague or client to take the risks and make the mistakes that have been so important to my own development.

If the beloved persists in repeating the same mistakes, choosing the same wrong paths, and insisting on demonstrably bad choices we may eventually intervene. If the intervention fails, we may intervene again. But if attitudes and behavior remain the same, finally we are likely to withdraw. We will not stop loving, caring, and being ready to fully engage our beloved. But we will recognize the freedom they have to choose, even to choose badly.

Refraining from action – and thereby preserving the freedom of others – is a fundamental characteristic that we share with our creator.

Loving

The book of Exodus reports that shortly after receiving the Ten Commandments Moses asked God to “show me your ways, so that I may know you.” (Exodus 33: 13). In reply God offers the following self-description:

The Lord, the Lord,
A God merciful and gracious,
Slow to anger
And abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
Keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
Yet by no means clearing the guilty,
But visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation. (Exodus 34: 6-7)

What is translated above as “steadfast love” is חסד or chesed in the original Hebrew. In the Bible chesed is most often translated as merciful or compassionate. In modern, non-religious English we could also use the word empathetic. God is compassionate; God knows your passions. God knows your true self, understands your intent and your fears, so God is empathetic. Because God knows your true self God is merciful. God loves you.

Because we are made in the image and likeness of God this is also our essential character. We are created to share the passions of others, know others, empathize with others, and love others.

The psychologist Rollo May writes, “The task and possibility of the human being is to move from his original situation as an unthinking and unfree part of the mass… to ever widening consciousness of himself and thus ever-widening freedom and responsibility, to higher levels of differentiation in which he progressively integrates himself with others in freely chosen love and creative work.” (May, Rollo; Man’s Search for Himself). To empathize with others requires substantial self-awareness. Without a self-critical, reflective, and honest ability at self-assessment we can hardly hope to understand others. As it has often been said, to love another you must first love yourself. To know another you must first know yourself.

Outside the private world of friends and family we are often uncomfortable discussing love. In a business context discussion of love is especially complicated. But such discomfort reflects an understanding of love quite different from that of the Torah or the New Testament.

Rollo May defines love “as a delight in the presence of the other person and an affirming of his value and development as much as one’s own.” While secular in origin, this definition is consistent with the Biblical concept of love. As a manager and consultant this is also very close to how I often feel in the most productive client contexts. Delight is not a word I would often use to describe my work with clients and colleagues, but it is a feeling that I have certainly experienced and want to experience more often.

We can approach business relationships – and many relationships – without much attention to the fundamental value of the other, much less seeking to delight in the other. In fact, we become quite adept at distancing ourselves from others, barely acknowledging our common humanity and shared identity. In making this choice we increase the separation between our current condition and our own true self.

If we accept that loving – along with creating and empowering – is an essential element of our character this distancing is not merely unfortunate; it is fundamentally wrong. You cannot know your true self without opening yourself to the risk, pains, and joys of loving others.

Can we really be effective in developing our colleagues or serving our clients without affirming their value and development as much as our own? If you lead from your true self, you will be compelled to help others find their true selves.

Empowering

God is not a micromanager. The guidance God offers in Genesis and Exodus is, in most cases, concise and restrained. God instructs Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, be vegetarians, and to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Otherwise they have authority and, even, dominion.

To Moses, God gives Ten Commandments:

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol…
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord…
Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy.
Honor your father and mother…
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Exodus 20: 3-17)

The commandments are specific rules for broad application through independent decision and action. Even as Moses adds rules and regulations in Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the scope of individual choice remains quite broad.

In nature we can observe a few simple rules providing a consistent framework, but allowing for extraordinary diversity. A meadow, a river, a mountain undergo constant – sometimes dramatic – change. Yet each retains an essential identity. Change and choice are tools of empowerment.

Just as we share with God the ability to create, we share the power to choose. Without the power to choose, our ability to create would be meaningless.

Kathleen Eisenhardt and Donald Sull, business professors at Stanford and Harvard, argue that, “In complicated, fast-moving markets where significant growth and wealth creation can occur, unpredictability reigns. It makes sense to follow the lead of entrepreneurs and underdogs – seize opportunities in the here and now with a handful of rules and a few key processes. In other words, when business becomes complicated, strategy should be simple.” (Eisenhardt, Kathleen, and Sull Donald; Strategy as Simple Rules, Harvard Business Review, January 2001)

Moses was clearly an underdog. He came down from Mt. Sinai with ten simple rules. Eisenhardt and Sull explain, “Managers using this (simple rules) strategy pick a small number of strategically significant processes and craft a few simple rules to guide them. The key strategic processes should place the company where the flow of opportunities is swiftest and deepest.” In studying successful companies the business scholars found that the simple rules were consistently of five types:

How-to rules: They spell out key features of how a process is executed (honor your father and mother),'

Boundary rules: They focus on which opportunities can be pursued and which cannot (you shall not…),

Priority rules: They help managers rank the accepted opportunities (you shall have no other gods before me),

Timing rules: They synchronize how one opportunity is paced with other parts of the company (remember the sabbath),

Exit rules: They help managers decide when to pull out of yesterday’s opportunities.

It is, perhaps, significant that the Ten Commandments do not address the possibility of exit. A relationship with God is timeless as even the best customer relationship is not.

According Eisenhardt and Sull consistent application of well-chosen simple rules provides just enough structure to capture the best opportunities in an unpredictable environment. This loose structure maximizes the scope of individual choice in dealing with change.

Moses anticipated this finding by more that 3000 years. We are each meant to be empowered to choose. When this power is taken from us we cannot become our true selves. Making choices and creating the future, consistent with a few simple rules, is fundamental to our shared humanity.

Creating

The books of Moses begin with God creating. “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light.’ And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness.” (Genesis 1:2-3)

God creates light, firmament, vegetation, stars, moon, sun, time, sea creatures, birds, insects, animals, and finally humans. Creation is achieved through the mere utterance of a word. God conceives of light, says light, and there is light. The Gospel of John explains, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

Most of my work focuses on helping clients organize their thoughts (at least a few clients will be offended to see this stated so clearly). To the extent I am helpful it is because I am outside the daily grind of the client’s context, so I can listen to and look at that context with more objectivity; I try to bring professional discipline and skill to how I listen and look; and I endeavor to clarify the words that I use – and the client uses – to describe their reality.

The words we use reflect how we interpret – make meaning of – what we experience. Finding the right words is not just an academic exercise; it is a process for clear thinking. The words we use create the reality we experience. What we tell ourselves of this experience – and what we tell others – really makes the experience.

The books of Moses tell us that on the sixth day of creation, God said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our own likeness… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. And God blessed them.” (Genesis 1:26-27) We were created in the likeness of God and like God can create with the mere utterance of words.

The Creation of Eve by William Blake (1808)

A few year's ago I went through a home renovation. Several sub-contractors were involved. All were male, about the same age, and most seemed to have grown up in the immediate vicinity. Regardless of who did the work, the specific tangible outcomes were good.

The customer experience, however, varied significantly depending on the team involved. One team was vulgar, vaguely angry, played the hardest of hard rock, and left behind a mess that reduced my wife to tears and took me several hours to pick up. The team of painters was pleasant, polite, and played a variety of country, bluegrass, gospel, and rock at reasonable volumes. They cleaned up after themselves and left the place looking better than they found it.

Once stepping past a painter I excused myself. He responded, “Not a problem. We need to remember we are in your way, you are not in our way.” I am convinced those words were part of a culture that had been purposefully created by the owner-manager. Those words made the reality.

Peter Drucker has argued that “there is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer. Markets are not created by God, nature, or economic forces but by businessmen… The customer is the foundation of a business and keeps it in existence. He alone gives employment. To supply the wants and needs of a consumer, society entrusts wealth-producing resources to the business enterprise.”(Drucker, Peter; Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices)

Drucker is careful in his choice of words. We do not find the customer, we create the customer. He goes on to explain, “Because its purpose is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only these two – basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results, all the rest are ‘costs.’”

Marketing is a persistent and disciplined sensitivity to and engagement with the reality outside the enterprise. For Drucker, marketing answers the questions: Who is the customer? What does the customer value? How does the customer buy? And what does the customer need? In answering these questions and organizing the enterprise to respond effectively to the answers, we create the customer. The questions are words. The answers will be words, words worth struggling over.

The second business function is innovation. Once the answers to the four marketing questions are crafted, plans and instructions must be developed to execute the answers. The plans should focus on how value will be created, how products and services will be delivered that the customer will want to buy. The plans and instructions will consist mostly of words or other symbols of communication. The plans and instructions will be the product of analysis, experience, and imagination, made real in a community through communicating and collaborating with others. Before a tangible product or service can be produced, we must first create intangible, yet true, value in the words we use to understand and shape reality.

In the likeness of God, we utter words and worlds are created. Moses learned – and tried to teach – that fundamental to our shared identity is the power and need to create. Embracing our need to create, and to be co-creators with others, is a key step in becoming our true self.

Self-Identity

You have a true self. Purpose, meaning, and fulfillment are the result of recognizing, defining, and living consistently with this fundamental identity.

Communities – including our workplaces – have a true self. We usually refer to this as a culture. Choosing to operate in a manner that is consistent with the community’s origins, purposes, and unique promise is a path to fulfillment.

Moses and his people are a persuasive example of this truth. There are many more examples. Significant achievement – both good and ill – is consistently tied to a passionate search for self.

Yet the search for self is often discouraged. Leaders sometimes subvert and pervert the essential character of their community. Parents sometimes reject their children’s essential selves. Most of us behave and believe in ways that deny some aspect of our fundamental identity. No wonder we can be confused and dissatisfied.

Moses was born into oppression. Through the guile of his mother and happy accident he was raised in privilege and power. In a moment of uncontrolled passion and fear he lost all his early advantages and lived for many years separated from everything he had known.

During this period of self-exile Moses married, became a father, and earned his living as a shepherd for his father-in-law. He subordinated himself. He accommodated himself to his context and immediate needs. He continued, however, to feel out-of-place. Moses named his son Gershom. In Hebrew ger means foreigner.

Moses then encountered a bush burning on the slopes of a mountain. It was some sort of thorny or prickly bush. The Hebrew word for this bush, seneh’, is used exclusively in the Bible to refer to the bush that Moses encountered. It certainly pricked the attention of Moses. Scripture says, “When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” (Exodus (3:4). The implication is that if Moses had ignored the strange phenomenon or fled from it, God would not have called him.

The metaphor is surely not accidental. Whatever Moses encountered on the slopes of Mt. Horeb it pricked his conscience, his memory, his sense of self and it ignited an unquenchable fire of self-discovery and reclamation of self. He could have walked away, but he did not. Instead he sought out the fire and found himself. The finding began on that mountain-top and continued for four decades. In the process Moses led his entire people in rediscovering their fundamental identity.

On Mt. Horeb Moses found his essential reality, his ultimate source of meaning, and his true self. Moses believed this same reality is available to each of us. In the books of Moses we find six characteristics of the true self that are universally shared:
1. Creating
2. Empowering
3. Loving
4. Refraining
5. Framing
6. Redeeming

How these shared characteristics are expressed will be unique to each individual, each culture, and each context. But by behaving consistently and coherently with these six characteristics we are able to find ourselves, differentiate ourselves, and find the fulfillment of purpose and meaning that otherwise is absent.

Moses Finds and Applies Sources of the Self

Over the last week I have set out the strategic insight of Moses. Over the next several days we will consider how he applied this insight to leading his people and how we might do likewise.

Moses found his true self in the characteristics we all share with God. Moses nurtured the true self of his people by emphasizing six characteristics that all of us have in common.

To be ourselves – and help others be themselves – we must create; we must be empowered to express our creativity and to love; to empower others we must refrain from limiting their free choice; but we must also develop and use frameworks to inform our free choice. Moses demonstrates that when we live consistently with these characteristics we can redeem our true self from trouble and failure.

Transcendence

Moses was a change leader. He found his people in bondage to a false identity. He led them to discover the freedom and opportunity of an authentic identity. He helped his people understand their origins and purpose; make sense of their failures; and perceive the promise that was theirs to claim.

Moses pushed his people to see beyond the security of fulfilling their minimal needs in Egypt to the possibilities of claiming a great purpose in another place. He led them through the risks and failures of the Exodus in order to find and define this purpose.

In the journey through the wilderness Moses encountered every aspect of the human condition. We sometimes try to obscure the very human and, therefore, complicated nature of business relationships. This is a mistake. John Kotter, a leading consultant on corporate strategy, writes, “The emotions that undermine change include anger, false pride, pessimism, arrogance, cynicism, panic, exhaustion, insecurity, and anxiety. The facilitating emotions include faith, trust, optimism, urgency, reality-based pride, passion, excitement, hope and enthusiasm.” (Kotter, John; Leading Change). There is no real change without engaging these emotions. Moses confronted all of them on a large scale.

Moses understood that people are motivated to change in order to avoid the bad or achieve the good. Fundamental change usually requires something more than avoiding a threat or advancing narrow self-interest. Radical change requires a vision of a transcendent good. This is not idealistic. This is a realistic recognition of what motivates us.

Charles Taylor writes that one of the most basic aspirations of human beings is “the need to be connected to, or in contact with, what they see as good, or of crucial importance, or of fundamental value.” (Taylor, Charles, Sources of the Self) Professionals, craftspeople, knowledge workers – most workers – want to know how the task they have been assigned is related to an overall outcome. They want to know how their task helps achieve a meaningful outcome. They want to know why the outcome is meaningful. Assuming the answers make sense, having this context is motivational to most professionals.

The management consultant Margaret Wheatley argues that, “one of the most potent shapers of behavior in organizations is meaning… I have seen companies make deliberate use of meaning to move through times of traumatic change. I’ve seen leaders make great efforts to speak forthrightly and frequently to employees about current struggles, about the tough times that lie ahead, and about what they dream of for the future. These conversations fill a painful period with new purpose, giving reasons for the current need to sacrifice and hold on. In most cases, given this kind of meaningful information, workers respond with allegiance and energy." (Wheatley, Margaret, Leadership and the New Science).

For Moses the destination was not so much a physical place as a source of meaning. The journey from the Nile to the Jordan was less about where the people were going than who they were going to become. He insisted that they could choose a powerful and profoundly fulfilling destiny.

Moses was seeking a long-term comparative advantage. To maintain his peoples’ independence and identity would be tough. The wilderness had to be crossed. The Promised Land had to be conquered. Powerful empires loomed both South and North. The multitude he led out of Egypt was divided into twelve tribes. There were many other sources of internal division and dissension.

Moses realized that differentiation would be a key to the survival of his people. His leadership was focused on defining and refining that differentiation. Business strategists often try to differentiate by focusing on competitors and highlighting superficial differences through packaging, marketing, and similar devices. Instead Moses focused inside.

Michael Porter has argued, “Differentiation grows out of the firm’s value chain. Virtually any value activity is a potential source of uniqueness.” (Porter, Michael; Competitive Advantage). Porter has found that most firms are simply unaware of existing value and, therefore, unable to deploy it effectively. Many firms already possess the potential sources of differentiation that would give them a comparative advantage. But because they are not aware of what they have, they do not organize and use it in a purposeful way. The firm fails to become its essential self.

As a leader, Moses focused his people on their core value. He told and retold stories of where they had come from and where they were going. Moses explained their struggles and failures as a path to meaning. He advocated a transcendent purpose. Most of all, he modeled a close relationship with God that empowered his ability to be totally himself.

Moses claimed his true self. In becoming authentically and fully himself, he claimed a position – a promised place – that was grounded in ultimate reality and fundamental value. He demonstrated that the power, resilience, and fulfillment of differentiation depend on becoming consistently and authentically yourself.