Roger: Hey everyone, welcome to the show! Today we're tackling a huge challenge for leaders and businesses: growing without losing what made you great to begin with. Basically, how do you take those "pockets of excellence," as Sutton and Rao call them in Scaling Up Excellence, and spread that magic? Patricia: Exactly, Roger. Let's face it, growth can be “really” messy, can't it? It's not just about deciding to get bigger, it's about not scaling up a mediocre version of yourself. Roger: Precisely! Sutton and Rao “really” dig into this with some amazing research and real-world examples. They show how different organizations – companies, schools, even hospitals – have either nailed scaling or completely failed at it. Their argument is that excellence isn't just about the procedures; it's about the mindset, the ability to adapt, and, frankly, a lot of leadership tenacity. Patricia: Yeah, and what I appreciate about their approach – although sometimes I find it a bit hard to swallow if I'm honest – is that they don't try to make it sound all that glamorous. Scaling is tough! And that brings us to what we're discussing today: three key aspects of scaling that “really” stood out for me from their work. Roger: First up, the "ground war" mindset. Think of it as winning your battles one street at a time, instead of relying on these big, flashy announcements from the top. Patricia: Then, of course, we have the age-old issue of standardization versus adaptation. Do you go with a "one size fits all" approach, or do you adapt it to each local situation? Spoiler alert: there is no easy answer! Roger: And finally, we'll be looking at the role of emotions in scaling. Change isn't always driven by policies or strategies; it's driven by stories, by connections, and by helping people believe in something bigger. Patricia: So, hang on tight, folks, because scaling isn't a walk in the park but hopefully in today's episode we'll be able to figure out the right mix of ingredients needed to build a lasting legacy of excellence. We need to get the foundation, the structure, and well, the vibe!

Roger: Alright, let's dive into the "ground war" mindset. Sutton and Rao argue it’s absolutely crucial for scaling excellence. Basically, instead of trying to swoop in with some flashy "air war"—you know, broad mandates from above—it’s all about getting your hands dirty. Tackling problems step-by-step, right where they happen. Patricia: I love the military metaphor, it really hits home. That air war versus ground war thing, it just sticks. Because think about it, an air war is like… “Okay, new company policy! Everyone, just do it!” But the reality on the ground? It's totally different. You know? How often does that actually work? Roger: Exactly! And Sutton and Rao bring up Robert Pape’s WWII analysis. Bombers only had an 18% success rate! Shocking, right? They were too far removed from what was actually happening on the front lines. And it's the same in organizations. Leaders try to force these sweeping changes from the top, but they don't get the daily grind. Patricia: Exactly. Organizations are messy, unpredictable, and full of… well, people. So this "ground war" is about meeting people where they are. It's detail-oriented, and leaders need to build trust, bit by bit. It’s like… cooking an amazing meal versus microwaving something. You can’t rush the good stuff. Roger: Perfect analogy! Take Claudia Kotchka at P&G. She initially went for that air war approach, scaling innovation across the company, fast. But she quickly learned that this kind of change takes time. So, she shifted to the ground level, integrated innovation teams step-by-step. It became part of P&G's DNA, not just another flash-in-the-pan initiative. Patricia: Okay, devil’s advocate time. “Patience” and "corporate setting"? Those words don't always go together, right? Especially with the pressure for quarterly numbers. Kotchka had that pressure at P&G. But this kind of scaling that we’re talking about, it's not a one-quarter thing. Roger: Good point. And that’s where persistence comes in. Sutton and Rao talk about incremental progress—small wins that build momentum. Leaders like Kotchka set realistic timelines and celebrated every little victory. It shifts the story from “fast results” to "building something that lasts". It’s a marathon, not a sprint. Patricia: Got it. It’s not about ignoring deadlines, it's about managing expectations. Helping people understand that real excellence is built layer by layer. Look at Bridge International Academies. They didn't just hire 800 teachers; they trained them hard. A year-long effort, maybe not glamorous, but it made sure those teachers embodied their mission. Roger: Yes! Bridge understood that scaling isn’t just adding more people. It’s about imprinting their values onto the new hires. They used hands-on training, building alignment with their vision. Attention to detail at the grassroots level. Laying a foundation, brick by brick; that’s the ground war. Patricia: What’s interesting here is how sustainable this is. If people are involved, trained well, and trusted, they’re more likely to stay and deliver results long-term. You're not just scaling a system, you’re scaling belief in that system. Roger: Totally! And there’s NASCAR. Andy Papa’s pit crew improvements are a great example of how small, disciplined changes add up. Shaving off two seconds from a pit stop doesn't sound huge, but in NASCAR, those seconds translate into championships. Textbook example of focusing on the fundamentals while keeping the big picture in mind. Patricia: But doesn't this kind of focus, like, drill after drill, risk burning people out? Part of scaling excellence has to be about avoiding emotional fatigue, right? Roger: That's where resilience and grit come in. Sutton and Rao mention Angela Duckworth’s research; perseverance is key for long-term success. Resilient leaders show it: they treat setbacks as fuel, not barriers. Consistently showing up for their teams, celebrating those small wins... It cultivates that same grit in others. Patricia: So it’s about balancing demanding excellence with creating an environment where people feel supported in achieving it. Scaling becomes a cultural thing, not just a structural thing. Roger: Exactly. At the heart of the ground war is this: scaling isn’t about forcing change into an organization. It’s about embedding excellence so deeply that it becomes self-sustaining over time. Creating something that lasts longer than any quick fix ever could.

Roger: Building on persistence, a key question is: how do you achieve lasting change while balancing standardization and adaptation? That brings us to Sutton and Rao's fascinating concept—Buddhism versus Catholicism in scaling. Patricia: Exactly! It’s a brilliant way to break down a tough dilemma. It connects mindset with real strategies, showing how important context is for scaling decisions. Basically, it's about choosing—or mixing—two very different ways to grow. The Catholic model is about keeping things consistent and controlled, while the Buddhist model focuses on being flexible and adapting to local areas. Roger: Precisely. Patricia: Okay, let’s dive into the Catholic approach first. What does it look like in practice, and who does it well? Roger: The Catholic approach is all about careful standardization. Processes and branding are tightly controlled to ensure everything is predictable and consistent. In-N-Out Burger is a great example. Their success is built on prioritizing consistency above all else—even resisting franchising or expanding too quickly, despite high demand. Patricia: Think about that. In today’s world where everyone's obsessed with fast growth, In-N-Out's strategy is almost rebellious. They refuse to weaken their brand, even if it means growing slower. Why does this work so well for them? Roger: It's because they’re so dedicated to quality and consistency. From their 'secret menu' to their fresh ingredients, they've made consistency their competitive advantage. Customers know exactly what to expect, whether they’re in Los Angeles or Las Vegas. This consistency builds strong loyalty. Patricia: Let me play devil's advocate here. While the Catholic model is great for In-N-Out, doesn’t strict standardization limit creativity and the ability to adapt to different markets? How do you innovate if you’re stuck following a rigid playbook? Roger: Good point. That’s the risk of relying too much on the Catholic approach—it can limit flexibility and prevent growth in new situations. That's where the Buddhist model comes in. Instead of enforcing a “one-size-fits-all” approach, it empowers teams to change practices based on local needs. IKEA is a good example of this. Patricia: IKEA? Okay, now we’re talking about Swedish meatballs and instruction manuals. How does IKEA actually use this Buddhist philosophy? Roger: Even though IKEA is a global company, they’ve managed to balance standardization with local adaptation. Their branding is consistent—you recognize IKEA anywhere—but they change their products and strategies to fit the local context. For example, in China, IKEA realized that their large furniture wasn’t practical for urban homes where space is limited. So, they created a line of space-saving furniture specifically for that market. Patricia: That’s smart. But it’s not just about the products, is it? Didn't they also adjust their prices and marketing to match local shopping habits? Roger: Yes, definitely. In China, IKEA lowered prices to emphasize affordability, which wasn’t as important in Western markets. They also adjusted their marketing, using digital platforms and local campaigns that resonated with Chinese consumers. This flexibility to adapt while keeping their brand consistent is why their Buddhist model works so well. Patricia: Okay, so Catholicism is like running a tight ship, and Buddhism is like giving your team a map and letting them navigate on their own. But what about companies that don’t want to go too far in either direction? Roger: That’s where a hybrid approach—balancing both Buddhism and Catholicism—can be really effective. Look at the Four Seasons hotels. They’ve perfected this balance by maintaining a global standard of luxury while allowing each hotel to incorporate local elements. Patricia: That hybrid model makes a lot of sense, especially in the hospitality industry. Guests expect a certain level of care and quality wherever they go, but they also want their experience to be connected to the local culture. Roger: Exactly. Their Hawaiian locations fully embrace local traditions, from hosting authentic luaus to using native Hawaiian designs. Meanwhile, their Paris locations emphasize French sophistication, with dining experiences and decor that reflect Parisian culture. Patricia: Okay, I have to ask—how do leaders actually find that balance between standardization and adaptation? Because if you focus too much on localization, you can end up with fragmented operations, right? Roger: It starts with a strong foundation of core values—in the Four Seasons’ case, a commitment to luxury and guest satisfaction. Once that’s in place, they empower local teams to tailor experiences without losing sight of the brand’s core identity. It's about being clear on what’s non-negotiable and allowing freedom where it’s beneficial. Patricia: So leaders need to navigate this balance, constantly adjusting between control and freedom. Easier said than done. What are some potential problems to watch out for? Roger: Great question. Over-standardization—the Catholic trap—can lead to rigidity and a lack of innovation. On the other hand, too much localization—the Buddhist trap—can fragment operations and weaken the brand. That’s why Sutton and Rao emphasize starting with core values, empowering local teams with feedback mechanisms and piloting solutions before implementing them broadly. It’s about being deliberate and iterative. Patricia: What I find most insightful is that these lessons aren’t set in stone. Decisions about standardization versus adaptation change with the context. It’s not a one-time choice; it’s a continuous balancing act. Roger: Exactly. That’s why leaders need to keep asking themselves, “When should we enforce consistency, and when should we allow freedom?” Successful scaling depends on getting that balance right—and that balance will often shift depending on the industry, market, or even the current situation.

Roger: So, once you've got your strategic framework sorted, the key really becomes how you drive change—both emotionally and practically. Sutton and Rao nail this, I think, with their "Hot Causes and Cool Solutions" concept. It's such a neat way to tie together, you know, the human aspect of scaling. It's not just about policies or frameworks; it's about tapping into what inspires people. And then, importantly, giving them a clear way to act on that inspiration. Patricia: Okay, so let me see if I've got this straight. "Hot causes" are basically the emotional kick-start, right? It's what grabs people's attention. And then "cool solutions" are the practical steps—the, dare I say, boring but necessary stuff—that keep the momentum going, but without, you know, causing chaos. Is that the gist? Roger: Exactly! And they use the Stanford helmet campaign as a really powerful example of this. Getting students to wear helmets while biking sounds simple, but it was apparently a massive challenge. Initially, they tried logical arguments, you know, throwing stats about injuries, but nobody cared! It wasn't until they shared one student's story that things changed. Patricia: Kali Lindsay, wasn't it? Her story wasn’t some abstract warning; it was, unfortunately, all too real. A life-threatening bike accident, complicated surgery, and a recovery that could have been avoided if she’d simply worn a helmet. That's some serious emotional weight right there. Roger: Precisely. Stats inform, but Kali’s experience connected people to the danger on a personal level. That’s what makes it such a great example of a hot cause. Her story wasn’t just a narrative; it was a mirror, forcing students to think, “That could have been me, or my friend.” And suddenly, the abstract risks of biking without a helmet became very tangible and relatable. Patricia: Right, but here's the key, isn't it? It's not just about jerking a few tears. They didn't just make people feel something; they channeled that emotion into tangible action with those "cool solutions." Roger: Absolutely, and that's their point. Emotional resonance alone isn’t enough to create any real change. It has to be followed by structured interventions. Sutton and Rao really emphasize this. For the helmet campaign, they did this by, for example, organizing student teams to create tailored messages for different groups of students. Patricia: Speaking of which, I loved the bit about getting the men’s soccer team on board. It seems to me that convincing a bunch of athletes who pride themselves on seeming indestructible to start wearing helmets is a pretty tough sell. Roger: Right! So, what did they do? They repositioned helmets as symbols of responsibility, even strength. Using peer pressure and incentives, they flipped the script. Combine that with Kali’s story, and, all of a sudden, even the skeptics started second-guessing themselves. Patricia: Then there was, of course, my personal favorite—the Watermelon Offensive. How ridiculously genius was that? Like, smashing watermelons to show what happens to a skull in an accident? It's slapstick meets horrifying reality. Roger: It was definitely memorable! That’s the whole point—the Watermelon Offensive used humor as a way to deliver a pretty stark message. By making the risks visual, visceral, and impossible to ignore, they reinforced the emotional impact of Kali’s story. Plus, it turned a potentially boring, preachy message about safety into something engaging. Patricia: I think the impressive thing is how seamlessly they blended urgency with practicality. It's easy to find campaigns that inspire an initial "aha" moment but then just fizzle out because they don't give people a clear next step. The Stanford campaign made helmets part of the campus culture, not just a fad. Roger: Agreed. And Sutton and Rao boil it down to principles any leader can use. Start with empathy and connection—the "hot cause." Stories like Kali’s don’t just inform; they make people care and feel some ownership. Then, provide clear pathways for action—like the tailored solutions and creative tactics we talked about. Leaders plant the seeds, but they also pave the way for them to grow! Patricia: Speaking of seeds—sorry, I had to. The "hot cause," like Kali's story, is only as good as the systems that support it. Which brings us back to continuously tailoring those systems. I mean, it's like gardening, right? Water and sunlight get things going, but if you don’t pull the weeds or enrich the soil, nothing lasts. Roger: That’s a perfect analogy. It speaks to the third lesson from the Stanford case—designing tailored interventions for different audiences. Sutton and Rao stress the importance of addressing unique barriers. The soccer team, the student commuting to class, even the faculty—each group had different reasons for not wearing helmets. A one-size-fits-all message would have been a complete miss. Patricia: Well, it's quite amusing because this customizing approach ties into the Buddhist versus Catholicism debate we touched on earlier. Where it feels that tailored interventions feel very Buddhist in their adaptability. But here, they’re executed with a grounding consistency—the Catholic side if you will—so the core safety message doesn’t get lost. Roger: Exactly. And the beauty of this framework is how universally applicable it is—it’s not just for helmet campaigns. Take public health initiatives or organizational change. Scaling excellence, or any behavior really, often begins with inspiring belief through stories and shared experiences. The challenge is pairing that belief with practical tools to then build systems around it. Patricia: Which is, I think, why this takeaway sticks with me: scaling isn’t only about scaling systems. It’s fundamentally about scaling belief. Leaders who underestimate the human element—who jump to "cool solutions" without creating that emotional spark—are basically launching a plane with empty fuel tanks, aren't they? Roger: Couldn't have said it better myself, Patricia. Scaling belief is the ultimate goal because it fosters intrinsic motivation and collective ownership. When people feel emotionally invested and have the tools to act, that’s when you get real alignment—and lasting transformation.

Roger: Okay, let's bring this home. Today, we dug into three core ideas from Sutton and Rao’s “Scaling Up Excellence”. First off, we talked about the "ground war" mentality—the idea that scaling isn't about these grand, top-down orders, but about persistent, detailed effort, embedding change at a “really” granular level. Patricia: Right. Then, we tackled that dynamic balance between "Catholicism" and "Buddhism". Do you enforce hardcore standardization, or do you allow for flexibility, adaptation? Turns out, it’s about finding the right mix—keeping the core values consistent while adapting strategies to fit the situation. Tricky, right? Roger: Exactly! And finally, we saw how scaling isn't just about the systems, about the processes; it's fundamentally about people. Without that emotional connection—those "hot causes"—and those practical solutions—the "cool solutions"—change just won't stick long-term. Patricia: So, here's the big question for you: Where's your organization on this scaling journey? Are you knee-deep in a "ground war," trying to nail that "Catholic-Buddhist" balance, or are you still searching for your "hot causes?" What's missing? What do you need to do to “really” make excellence spread? Roger: Yeah, scaling isn’t just about getting bigger; it’s about getting better. And that starts with clear vision, unwavering persistence, and a whole lot of courage. Remember, excellence is never an accident; it's something you build, step by step. Patricia: Thanks for joining us as we navigate this messy, totally fascinating road to scaling excellence. Until next time, keep building, keep adapting, and, most importantly, keep inspiring!