Of course, if we were able to watch a great athlete training, or a great writer writing, or a great coder coding, we would see that honing a strength is hard work—it is by no means easy to find that incremental margin of performance when you are already operating at a high level—and that a strength is not where we are most “finished” but in fact where we are most productively challenged. Yet we are told to resist the temptation to “just” play to our strengths, and instead to work constantly on our weaknesses. In common parlance, we are told to avoid “running around our backhand.” This betrays, perhaps, a misunderstanding of what a strength actually is. It is not, for each of us, where performance is easiest—it is where performance is most impactful and increasing.

I [Jeff Killeen] found I had to be precise and resist my natural temptation to use too many superlatives when describing the accomplishments in the business. John would say, ‘You spin things all the time. You make everything sound good.’ I’d say, ‘John, that was good.’ And he would say, ‘But you make it sound like it’s even better than it is. We’re engineers. We don’t use words like terrific and outstanding. We say, “You did your job.” When you say that the team did a terrific job, they don’t believe you.’ We finally agreed that whenever he thought I was spinning, he would tell me. And whenever I thought he was underwhelming, I would tell him.”

Killeen elaborates on how he learned to communicate in an engineering culture. “The perspective from which John comes to the business is obsessive in a wonderful way. He harks back to the philosophy that he’s building a bridge and that a bridge cannot fail. I said, ‘John, but we’re not building a bridge, and failure is okay if we fail fast and incorporate that learning so that we can grow as fast as possible. It’s preferable to me to get eight things done well and fail a two versus doing three or four things to perfection.’ John said, ‘We’re not trained to accept a lot of failure or welcome it into the process.’ I said, ‘That’s a management concept we have to work on.

He was a superb business executive. And he did it through practicing the points covered in this chapter: operational excellence, putting people first, being decisive, communicating well, knowing how to get the most out of even the most challenging people, focusing on product excellence, and treating people well when they are let go.

PART 3: The Secret of Our Success

9: Better at Everything

“Abrahams employed a personal coach, Sam Mussabini, before his 1924 Olympic victory. This was regarded as almost tantamount to cheating, but today even club runners benefit from extensive coaching, better diet and nutritional guidance, and from the advice of friendly competitors. Bolt runs 10 per cent faster and Kipchoge 50 per cent faster than the earlier winners in their events. These improvements in productivity have been observed in an activity whose essential character has remained unchanged for thousands of years. Mussabini could train Abrahams to win Olympic gold but could never have run the race himself; Abrahams could run faster than any man alive but had no understanding of sports mechanics. The combination was more powerful than either alone. The power of combinations of capabilities is the secret of our modern athletic prowess. And of our opulence.

Charismatic leaders sometimes assume that they can avoid this trade-off by sheer force of personality. If they just get everybody fired up, the kinks will work themselves out. But you can't design a system that is based on the faith that all of your employees will perform heroically, all day, every day, for an indefinite period. For a system to work, excellence must be normalised. And you don't get to that point by demanding extraordinary sacrifice. You get there by designing a model where the full spectrum of your employees — not just the out- standing ones — will have no choice but to deliver excellence as an everyday routine. You get there by building a system that just doesn't produce anything else.