Business leaders talk about the the need to ‘build capabilities’ – especially around new challenges like evolving into the digital world, or market entry into complex new markets.

To ‘build’ capabilities, their mindset is often the same as constructing a building.

The first phase of the ‘building’ process is planning and designing. An architect creates a design according to the purpose and aesthetics needed. This design is then translated into a cost estimate and resources are allocated. A civil engineer is found and various contractors engaged. Machinery is moved. Foundations are dug. Concrete is poured. Steel is embedded in the cement so the building is strong and earthquake proof.  A manager is placed on the construction site to oversee progress against the detailed time and work schedule. Once in a while the owner of the site comes to inspect progress. After a year or two, a shiny new building is in place.

By nature building designs are rigid and the designer must know exactly what to create before the workers create it – the process is not flexible mid-way if the needs change while the building is being constructed.

If you apply the building analogy to a complex new task like taking a legacy business into the digital world or entering a complex new market like China or India,  this approach may have challenges.

For a complex task in a world changing at an accelerating rate, we may just not know enough to create a rigid design that will be optimal at the point when the building is fully constructed.

Leaders who build capabilities using this model, run the risk to have the illusion of a ‘perfect plan’.  The project may be fully staffed up with smart managers and detailed KPIs/metrics, yet still fail because they may do things right, but not the right things !

Another approach, sometimes used by more ‘local’ companies and also by small, fast moving companies in rapidly evolving technology areas is more organic.

Rather than ‘building’ structures, treat capabilities like ‘growing’ plants.

In this approach, it is important to choose the right seed. These need to be planted in fertile ground. Once planted they need sunshine, water, fertiliser and patience. As the seed turns into a small plant and grows further into a young tree, it needs protection from pests and needs correction while young, if it is not growing straight. Eventually it grows into a beautiful tree.

The plant is predictable in a broad sense (the type of tree depends on the type of seed, the growth depends on the conditions) but it is unpredictable in a narrow sense (impossible to predict each twig, leaf or root). Each tree may look different depending on how it evolves to best thrive in its environment. On the other hand, the building is predictable – it looks exactly like its designers planned.

The approach allows a single gardener to sow multiple seeds to reduce the risk of failure and cover more possible eventualities. As plants grow, they create additional seeds which evolve in darwinian ways over generations to best ensure future growth of the species.

Both approaches require thoughtfulness at the start – but unlike the detailed, resource constrained, KPI driven building planner, the gardener needs to consider fewer details – just the seed and the conditions. It requires more patience and faith but less resource and no micromanagement.

Companies and managers may get locked into one of these two modes and are often convinced that their way is the ‘best way’.

I believe that there is room for both approaches – the ‘build’ approach should be used in stable, relatively slowly changing conditions where the designer is very sure of deliverables and the duration of the project. The ‘grow’ approach should be more used in fast evolving situations or when the designers knowledge is imperfect.

Depending on the approach needed in the role, companies need to decide whether they want gardeners or builders.

Both roles have different mindsets – putting a gardener mindset into a builder role can be very risky and putting a builder mindset into a gardener role can be very frustrating. KPIs for builders need to be very time-bound, precise and input driven, while gardeners need more holistic and output driven KPIs with more relaxed time scales.