Peter Thiel takes on John Boyd
John Boyd is not well known in the British Army, which is a shame, not least because he is the father of modern army doctrine. He is arguably one of the most influential military minds of the 20th Century. Boyd started life as a fighter pilot, winning the nickname “Forty-second Boyd” for his ability to quickly best any other pilot. When he moved into the Pentagon, his theories of air combat were influential in the design of aircraft such as the F-16 and A-10. He then moved on to military strategy; his day-long lecture on the nature of decision making in war was legendary. His ideas informed the development of the USMC’s maneuver warfare, the US Army’s AirLand Battle (a compromise between attritional and maneuver warfare) and later the British Army’s manouvre doctrine. He even had an important role in developing the left-hook strategy of Operation DESERT STORM.
To say he was a rebel is an understatement. He enjoyed getting up close and personal with his intellectual opponents, once setting a general on fire by prodding him with a lit cigar. His later nicknames included Ghengis John, the Mad Major and the Ghetto Colonel (this video illustrates why). He was never promoted past colonel, but his influence lives on: his challenge to choose between “doing something” (making a difference in the world) or “being someone” (getting promoted) continues to inspire young officers today.
Boyd’s intellectual legacy, in particular the OODA loop, has made a few small ripples in the business world, but certainly nothing spectacular. He unquestionably does have spiritual heirs, though — and they work in Silicon Valley. It’s fun to imagine how Boyd would have fit in around the Valley. He’d almost certainly have clashed with the culture of political correctness. But on an intellectual level he would have fit right in. He was the consummate outsider, a disrupter, and he would have viewed “big corporate” as a bunch of dinosaurs.
In that sense, the lean start-up — the flavour of the month in start up land — is firmly in the Boyd tradition. The lean start-up seeks to start small but get a minimum viable product into the market and iterate it until it succeeds. Feedback and experimentation are critical, obviating the need for lots of start-up funding. Some founders even celebrate not having a strategy. The lean start-up coheres with the notion that investors back entrepreneurs and leadership teams, rather than business models (which can be changed). It also sits firmly in the tradition of Henry Mintzberg, who challenged Michael Porter’s top-down style of deliberate strategy with the fresh idea of bottom-up emergent strategy.
Key parts of the lean start-up philosophy include:
- Build-measure-learn, the core process of the lean start-up
- Continuous deployment, whereby product improvements are immediately implemented
- Pivot, whereby core elements of the product, strategy and organisation are rapidly changed to reflected improved understanding of the market
The similarities between the lean start-up and the work of John Boyd are obvious.
Peter Thiel, I can confidently predict, is also not well known in the British Army. Thiel is libertarian, billionaire entrepreneur. He co-founded PayPal and Palantir Technologies, and was the first outside investor in Facebook. He now runs hedge funds and VC funds. He is thoroughly iconoclastic, and is one of the most interesting people on the speaking circuit. Many entertaining videos of him can be found on YouTube (for instance, here).
His position as an undisputed king of the Valley is what makes his take on the lean start-up so interesting: he rejects it.
In his latest and thought-provoking book, Zero to One, Thiel makes several pertinent arguments:
- Making iterative changes will only lead to local maximums, not global ones
- The future may be unknowable, but being conservative and not taking a bet on the future will lead to mediocrity (“It is better to risk boldness than to be trivial”)
- Optionality is overrated
- Long-term plans are undervalued by our short-term world; they are rarer than good people
In sum, intelligent design beats iteration and evolution; having a plan is superior to “bluffing it” or “just cracking on”.
Obviously it’s a stretch to argue that Peter Thiel is really in conflict with John Boyd; the point is actually to be clear about where their respective philosophies are relevant.
Thiel is clear that the goal of a business leader should not be outperforming competitors, but rather creating a monopoly and obviating competition altogether. Soldiers don’t have this luxury; recall that Von Moltke wrote that “no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force” (frequently misquoted to first contact with the enemy). In other words, intelligent design is preferable where unpredictable, independent action by the enemy is limited — in grand strategy for instance. The US’s containment strategy, or the Apollo programme, are good examples. By contrast, the tactical level is clearly not the place for intelligent design.
In many ways, Apple is a fascinating juxtaposition. Apple did not nervously iterate its way to success; Steve Jobs laid out and executed a definite multi-year plan, from the way it packaged its products right up to its corporate strategy. In that sense it is the iconic example of the intelligent design philosophy. On the other hand, Apple has been in deep competition throughout its existence with serious players such IBM, Microsoft, Sony, HTC, Blackberry and Samsung.
Apple was able to thread this needle by intelligently designing an overall strategy that left space to evolve and seize opportunities. Recall the “predatory leap” that Steve Jobs prepared himself to make (discussed here). This golden mean —iteration within a brilliant, long-term strategy—is something both Thiel and Boyd would celebrate.
Update. Great article on Boyd here, including lots of video.
