There is this inertia that most people in business who think they are successful have that prevents them from acting on things until it is too late. It is why they are caught unawares by change.

I read ”Only the paranoid survives” and I am seeing it play out in real life again.

Constant paranoia doesn't mean acting like a crazy person or even a mean and greedy person. It means that you are constantly aware that adverse change can make you irrelevant very quickly. The speed of irrelevance is much faster now and it largely depends on team types.
Some teams can be deluded. They believe too much in themselves because of past glory that it clouds their ability to see future danger. When the unexpected finally happens, they turn on each other and blame themselves and abandon the ship. They have always been living a lie.
Some teams can be totally ignorant of what is happening around them and can have tunnel vision. They end up working on products that have become irrelevant before they finish. They still believe somehow that others will adapt to them and csnf understand why failure happens.
Some teams can have extreme keyman risk. One person knows most of what needs to be done and nothing works well when that person is not in the picture. This type is more prevalent than we can imagine. Once one person takes more initiative, others just become passive.
I have encountered all of these scenarios internally and externally. As much as we can talk about the role of leadership in shaping an changing teams, the environment where these teams reside to make the most difference. I’ve seen the massive difference moving people around makes
Inertia also has to do with place. Once people get into comfort zones physically, they also enter into it mentally. The biggest risk is usually not discomfort but comfort. When people settle into a pattern, it is extremely hard to change them. This is why firing is an option.
Performance systems work when there is consequence. I remember how strict Arthur Anderssen/Anderssen Consulting (eventually Accenture) used to be about firing for performance lapses. It is what made them last for a long time as an institution. If you don't pass exams you leave.
A good performance system should dissociate a manger from the managed. Many people fail to implement those systems because they are looking for someone to take the role. I have found out that having people in those roles can compound problems too if they are clueless.
After struggling to implement OKRs and seeing complete lack of understanding of the concept and commitment, I have also realized that smaller companies need accountability models that everyone is committed to and understand the necessity as well as consequence of noncompliance.
No matter how much you try to shape an internal culture, the external creeps in. To succeed in creating one in our part of the world, people need to have exposure to understand that others don't have ”two heads” as we say locally.
This is a book I will ALWAYS recommend. Buy it for everyone on your team.

More from Osaretin Victor Asemota

More from Life

1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.

Please add your own.

2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you


3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.

“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”

“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”

4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:

“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”

“What’s end-game here?”

“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”

5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:

“What would the best version of yourself do”?

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.