by Todd Schmidt
How many times throughout your career has someone told you to not reinvent the wheel?
Scientists estimate that the wheel has been around since about 3500 BC. Originally used for manufacturing pottery, milling, irrigation, and children’s toys, someone figured out that it would be great for hauling (the wheelbarrow). Then someone else figured out that the wheel could be used for transportation (the chariot). From solid wheels, carved from stone and wood, to spoked, metal-rimmed wheels, to the basic pneumatic technology we see in use today, the simple machine of wheel and axle is timeless.
Yet, while the general principle of the wheel has not changed in about 6000 years, the concept of the wheel has been reinvented countless times throughout history. The material compounds, design construct, tread efficiency and longevity have all changed. And they will continue to change. These factors to include advanced digital components of future wheels will be unlike anything we see on our roads today.
So why have humans continued to reinvent the wheel?
To make things better.
Over the course of my career, I have often heard the idiom, “Don’t reinvent the wheel.” I know that I am guilty of uttering the phrase and I bet that you are, too. It is a phrase often uttered at every level of leadership, usually in relation to some pending task, project, or planning effort. It is a caution against wasting time. It is a caution against doing what has already been done in the past. It is a caution against creating redundancy.
There is no doubt this phrase is a valuable reminder that proven protocols, standard operating procedures (SOPs), or tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) save time and, in many instances, save resources and lives. However, in the context of aspiring to create innovative, disruptive change, thinking about how to ‘reinvent the wheel,’ is exactly what may be required. How do we do something we already do, better?
For operational and strategic leaders, encouraging subordinates to ‘reinvent the wheel,’ particularly in the face of the challenges and opportunities of a future operational environment converging with advancing technologies, reimagining and reinventing the wheel is critical and imperative.
In contrast, telling someone to not “reinvent the wheel,” signals that you are satisfied with the status quo – that you have resigned and accepted an assumption that improvement, advancement, and progress are a waste of resources. While the world is rapidly changing and advancing, maintaining the status quo is actually going backwards in time. Imagine driving an Abrams Tank mounted on the wheels of a western pioneer’s Conestoga wagon? Better yet, imagine the battalion or brigade tactical operations centers of the last few decades – massive signatures, easily targeted – surviving in our next war! Ridiculous?
Yet, for transient leaders that move in and out of leadership positions with little longevity beyond two or three years, maintaining the status quo can be comforting. “Don’t reinvent the wheel” on my watch! After all, to truly “drive change” means accepting risk. Unfortunately, when given limited time and resources to lead an organization through a relatively short period of time, “risk avoidance” is often a natural instinct. To accept risk, even if well-mitigated, still involves anxiously navigating the unknown.
We may find ourselves asking questions that can amplify self-doubt. If I take risk, how may I upset the organization I lead? If I take risk, how may I upset my boss? If I take risk, will I get promoted? If I take risk, will people complain about me to my leadership? If I take risk, how will it affect my reputation? How will it affect my career or family?
Why take all that risk, when I can safely navigate an organization through a brief period of time by avoiding any attempt to “reinvent the wheel”? Why not just maintain the status quo?
We see this dynamic play out across our military every day. We see leaders come and go, in and out of important leadership positions that can affect real, positive, disruptive, innovative change. Yet, they avoid making real change by avoiding decisions, slowing progress, stifling initiative, and opting for the status quo or, in some cases, disingenuously re-dressing or re-branding the status quo as something new.
In a recent conversation with a colleague, we discussed the virtues and vices of rule-followers versus rule-breakers; ‘the company man’ versus ‘the maverick;’ dogmatic and principled versus pragmatic and realistic. My friend had recently read that dogmatic, principled leaders tend to be more successful in times of peace, whereas pragmatic, realistic leaders tend to be more successful in times of war. For me, it made sense, possibly explaining why we are so often accused or guilty of ‘fighting the last war,’ and tend to be more inventive, resourceful, and creative in conflict – when lives are on the line. As Sun Tzu warned, one’s victories in battle cannot be repeated – they take their form in response to inexhaustibly changing circumstances.
I fully understand that the argument I am making is not a black and white issue. There are nuances and shades of gray that determine how we approach organizational leadership and challenges at the operational and strategic levels. I am, however, endeavoring to communicate to readers a cautionary tale. Despite the transient nature of our assignments, we need to be aggressive and progressive in our leadership approach and philosophy. And, it needs to be more than “PowerPoint” deep, more than something we sketch on a whiteboard, napkin, or scratch paper.
Do not be afraid to make impactful decisions. Do not be afraid to make meaningful change. Do not be afraid to take well-mitigated risk. Do not be afraid to reinvent the wheel.
Col. Todd Schmidt, Ph.D., U.S. Army, is director of Army University Press at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; a nonresident Fellow with the U.S. Military Academy’s Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic; and an AUSA Leadership Fellow. He is the author of the book Silent Coup of the Guardians: The Influence of U.S. Military Elites on National Security.
