The Enemy Reversed: When the Pursuit of Great Blocks Progress

Reframing Excellence, Execution, and Iteration in Modern Leadership

Executive Summary

For a generation of leaders, Jim Collins’ assertion that “good is the enemy of great” has functioned as a rallying cry against complacency — a reminder that settling for adequacy quietly erodes organizational potential.¹ Yet in today’s operating environment — defined by accelerated change, compressed decision cycles, and constant innovation pressure — a different risk has emerged. Increasingly, organizations are not failing because they accept good performance. They are stalling because they hesitate to act until conditions feel perfect.

The modern leadership paradox is this: the pursuit of greatness, when mistimed, can suppress experimentation, slow learning, and discourage forward motion. Excellence becomes an abstract threshold teams feel obligated to meet before beginning — and progress waits. This paper argues that greatness is not always achieved by rejecting good work, but often by leveraging it. When properly sequenced, good execution becomes the engine of iteration, learning, and eventual excellence. In this context, the enemy is not good — it is the premature demand for great.

Foreword

Some of the most important leadership decisions I’ve made did not come with complete information, perfect timing, or the comfort of certainty. They came at moments when waiting felt safer — when refining the plan one more time promised the illusion of control — but where progress demanded action instead. Again and again, I’ve faced the same quiet question: Do we wait until this is great, or do we begin with what is good and trust that excellence will emerge through the work?

Experience has taught me that leadership lives inside that tension.

Across nonprofit management, staffing environments, and startup ventures, I have rarely had the luxury of acting with full clarity. What I have had — and what leaders almost always have — is a responsibility to move forward anyway. Not recklessly, and not without standards, but with the understanding that progress creates the information that planning alone cannot. Once action begins, feedback replaces assumption. Teams discover what works. Blind spots surface. Direction sharpens. Improvement becomes tangible. Excellence stops being theoretical and starts becoming earned.

This philosophy is grounded in a belief I hold deeply: progress over perfection does not mean lowering standards — it means sequencing them wisely. I pursue high standards relentlessly. Continuous improvement is not optional; it is the discipline that transforms early effort into meaningful outcomes. But I have learned that perfection pursued too early can quietly stall momentum. Excellence is rarely present at inception. It is forged through iteration, adaptation, and the willingness to refine what already exists.

I think of this approach as rigid flexibility. We establish guardrails — values, expectations, and intended outcomes — that anchor our work. Within those boundaries, we remain open to change. Ideas are welcomed regardless of where they originate. Some of the most transformative insights I’ve encountered have come from people closest to the work — individuals empowered to challenge assumptions and contribute freely. When collaboration operates without ego or hierarchy, the result is often greater than anything a single leader could design. The work becomes collective, resilient, and stronger for it.

These lessons did not begin in boardrooms or startups. They trace back to my earliest leadership experience — as a 13-year-old patrol leader in the Boy Scouts of America with Troop 2 in Athens, Georgia. Our scoutmaster demanded excellence in everything we did: how tents were rolled, how meals were prepared, how we conducted ourselves, and even how we wore the uniform. When I was given the opportunity to lead a newly formed patrol made up of the youngest scouts in the troop, I quickly learned that excellence was not something you inherited — it was something you organized around.

1997 - Broad River, GA - Shark Patrol, Troop 2 BSA - Lane seated on far right

We were a group of 12- and 13-year-olds, peers learning to lead one another in real time. Within the guardrails of the troop’s expectations, we created our own identity and standards. We named ourselves the Shark Patrol. We designed and built our own flag — imperfect in craftsmanship, but powerful in meaning. It symbolized ownership, pride, and a shared commitment to doing things well. That flag wasn’t about decoration; it was a statement that we intended to operate with purpose and discipline, even as newcomers.

Action followed identity. We organized ourselves to raise funds — mowing lawns, running car washes — so we could purchase materials to build our own foot lockers. Those lockers carried our gear, but more importantly, they carried the pride of work we had planned, funded, and completed together. Leadership in that environment meant motivating peers, coordinating effort, and holding one another accountable to standards we collectively embraced. We were imperfect, learning constantly, and adjusting as we went. Yet the pride came not from flawlessness, but from ownership, iteration, and the shared pursuit of excellence.

I have refined those lessons across nonprofit leadership, staffing environments, and startup ventures, but their foundation remains unchanged. Those early experiences taught me that excellence is not the absence of imperfection — it is the discipline of improvement sustained over time, anchored by identity, collaboration, and the courage to act before everything feels finished.

This white paper reflects that lived perspective. It challenges the assumption that good work inherently obstructs greatness and instead argues for a more dynamic relationship between action and excellence. The pursuit of high standards remains essential. But progress — guided by discipline, strengthened by collaboration, and informed by feedback — is what allows those standards to take root.

If there is a central conviction behind these pages, it is this: leadership is not about choosing between good and great. It is about having the courage to begin, the humility to improve, and the discipline to keep moving until excellence becomes the natural result of the journey.

Collins’ Framework: The Discipline of Rejecting Complacency

Collins’ landmark research examined organizations that achieved sustained performance breakthroughs and found a common cultural thread: a disciplined refusal to accept mediocrity.¹ Leaders in these companies cultivated focus, accountability, and long-term commitment to improvement. The underlying behavioral insight was clear — satisfaction with “good enough” results reduces urgency, dampens ambition, and stabilizes systems around adequacy.

Organizational theory reinforces this dynamic. When performance meets expectations, adaptive tension — the productive discomfort that drives transformation — tends to dissipate.² In stable industries or mature institutions, complacency is a credible threat. Collins’ framework remains powerful in environments where inertia is the dominant barrier to advancement.

However, his model implicitly assumes that comfort is the primary obstacle to excellence. Modern execution environments complicate that assumption.

The Modern Constraint: Perfection as Operational Friction

Contemporary leadership research increasingly identifies over-optimization and perfectionism as sources of delay rather than excellence. Edmondson’s work on psychological safety shows that teams accelerate learning when experimentation is normalized and early imperfection is tolerated.³ Ries’ lean innovation framework similarly demonstrates that releasing minimally viable work reduces uncertainty and increases adaptive speed.⁴

In practice, cultures that elevate perfection as a prerequisite to action often experience:

• Delayed execution due to excessive refinement

• Risk aversion disguised as quality control

• Reduced feedback loops

• Decision fatigue driven by over analysis

Behavioral research confirms that perfection-oriented systems can unintentionally suppress initiative and amplify fear of failure.⁵ What appears to be rigor becomes friction. Teams wait for conditions that never fully materialize, trading momentum for the illusion of certainty.

Under these conditions, the pursuit of “great” transforms from aspiration into constraint. Progress stalls not because standards are high, but because action is deferred.

Good as a Strategic Platform for Emergent Excellence

Modern execution frameworks — from agile management to lean innovation — reframe early-stage output as a strategic asset.⁶ Rather than treating initial work as final, these systems treat it as a learning instrument. The operational logic is iterative:

• Action produces informed results

• Feedback sharpens direction

• Refinement compounds performance

Here, “good” is not an endpoint — it is a deliberate starting condition. Execution generates information that planning alone cannot reveal. Each cycle reduces uncertainty and increases capability.

March’s exploration–exploitation model underscores this balance: organizations that sustain long-term performance alternate between experimentation and refinement.⁷ Greatness emerges not from waiting for perfect conditions, but from disciplined cycles of doing, learning, and improving.

In this framework, rejecting early action in pursuit of theoretical perfection delays the very process through which excellence becomes attainable.

Leadership Implications: Sequencing Excellence and Momentum

Modern leaders must navigate two competing risks:

Guarding Against Complacency

• Sustain performance expectations

• Encourage continuous improvement

• Resist comfort-driven stagnation

Guarding Against Paralysis

• Normalize iterative execution

• Reward learning velocity

• Reduce fear associated with early imperfection

Effective leadership lies in sequencing these disciplines. Standards remain high, but action is prioritized. Teams are encouraged to move decisively while maintaining accountability for refinement. Excellence becomes an emergent property — achieved through momentum, not delayed by it.

Organizations that master this balance cultivate resilience. They preserve ambition without sacrificing adaptability, allowing progress to compound rather than stall.

Conclusion

Collins’ warning against complacency remains a foundational leadership principle. Yet modern operating conditions reveal a complementary truth: the premature pursuit of perfection can be equally limiting. Organizations that defer execution in search of ideal conditions sacrifice the feedback and learning that drive sustained excellence.

Greatness rarely arrives fully formed. It is constructed through disciplined iteration, informed risk-taking, and continuous adjustment. In this light, good is not the enemy of great — it is often the mechanism through which greatness becomes possible.

The leadership imperative is not to choose between good and great, but to understand their sequence. When leaders reverse the enemy — recognizing when the pursuit of great blocks progress — they unlock a more adaptive path to enduring excellence.

References

1. Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t. HarperBusiness.

2. Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice Hall.

3. Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organization. Wiley.

4. Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. Crown Business.

5. Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism. Personality and Social Psychology Review.

6. Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile Project Management. Addison-Wesley.

7. March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science.

This white paper represents the author’s professional perspective and does not reflect the official position of any organization or regulatory agency.

Author: Peter S. Lane

Subject Matter Expertise: FAA Part 147 Aviation Maintenance Education, Workforce Development, Industry Partnerships, Educational Technology, Nonprofit Management, Board Governance, Staffing Industry, Sales & Marketing

Affiliations: Executive Advisor and Former Founding Executive, FAA Part 147 Certified Aviation Maintenance Training Organization, Member Aviation Technician Education Council, Member National Eagle Scout Association

Date: February 18, 2026

#ExecutiveLeadership
#OrganizationalExcellence
#ProgressOverPerfection
#WorkforceDevelopment
#AviationWorkforce
#InnovationInAviation

Modernizing Aviation Maintenance Training

Aligning Education with Commercial Aviation Workforce Demand

Author: Peter S. Lane

Subject Matter Expertise: FAA Part 147 Aviation Maintenance Education, Workforce Development, Industry Partnerships, Educational Technology

Affiliations: Executive Advisor and Former Founding Executive, FAA Part 147 Certified Aviation Maintenance Training Organization; Collaborator with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Aviation Technician Education Council

Date: February 2, 2026

Executive Summary

The aviation maintenance workforce is facing a growing and unsustainable shortage. Demand for aviation maintenance technicians (AMTs) continues to rise due to increased passenger traffic, expanding fleets, and the introduction of new aircraft technologies. However, training capacity and instructional models have not evolved at the same pace.

Current FAA Part 147 training programs remain largely rooted in a general aviation (GA) instructional model, while the majority of employment demand exists in commercial aviation maintenance environments. This disconnect between educational context and workforce reality limits graduate readiness, constrains training scale, and increases the burden on employers to retrain new hires.

This white paper proposes a modernized aviation maintenance training framework that:

• Preserves foundational aviation maintenance principles

• Integrates commercial hangar environments into education

• Leverages virtual reality (VR) and software-based learning systems

• Builds structured partnerships between educators and industry

• Scales training capacity using existing commercial infrastructure

Without structural change, the AMT shortage will continue to widen. With collaboration and innovation, the industry can transform training into a pipeline aligned with real-world operational needs.

1. The Workforce Gap: A Quantitative Challenge

The aviation maintenance workforce deficit is measurable and accelerating.

• Annual U.S. demand: approximately 13,000 AMTs

• Annual U.S. production: approximately 9,000 AMTs

• Annual shortfall: nearly 4,000 technicians

Long-term forecasts further underscore the urgency. Projections from Boeing and other reputable workforce studies estimate that the global aviation system will require approximately 770,000 aviation maintenance technicians over the next 20 years, with the United States representing a significant share of that demand.

This shortage is occurring while:

• Passenger air traffic has surpassed pre-2019 levels

• Commercial fleets continue to expand

• New aircraft platforms such as electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) vehicles approach entry into service

Incremental solutions—such as opening a small number of new training schools—cannot close a gap of this magnitude. The challenge requires systemic change in how aviation maintenance education is delivered and scaled.

2. Training and Workplace Misalignment

Most FAA Part 147 programs were developed around general aviation instructional environments characterized by:

• Small aircraft platforms

• Limited fleet diversity

• Classroom-centered instruction

• Controlled shop-based labs

However, workforce demand is overwhelmingly concentrated in:

• Commercial airline hangars

• Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) facilities

• Transport-category aircraft

• High-volume, time-sensitive operational environments

Graduates often encounter a significant transition from academic training to commercial practice. While they possess theoretical knowledge and basic mechanical skills, they frequently lack:

• Exposure to large-aircraft systems

• Familiarity with industrial maintenance workflows

• Experience operating within regulated commercial environments

This gap slows onboarding, increases employer training costs, and reduces early-career confidence and effectiveness.

3. Commercial Hangars as Learning Laboratories

A modern training model must integrate education into the environments where aviation maintenance work actually occurs.

Key Components of an Industry-Integrated Training Model

A. Commercial Hangar Access

Students participate in structured learning activities inside airline and MRO facilities through:

• Guided field instruction

• Supervised hands-on labs

• Observational rotations

B. Industry Professionals as Educational Partners

Certified technicians serve as adjunct mentors while FAA-certified instructors retain academic and regulatory oversight.

This preserves educational accountability while introducing operational expertise.

C. Contextual Learning

Instruction occurs on transport-category aircraft systems, exposing students to:

• Advanced avionics

• High-capacity hydraulic and pneumatic systems

• Industrial safety and compliance procedures

This approach strengthens regulatory compliance by embedding FAA standards within real operational contexts rather than isolated training environments.

4. Technology as a Force Multiplier: VR and Digital Learning Systems

Virtual reality (VR) and software-as-a-service (SaaS) learning platforms can significantly enhance aviation maintenance education when thoughtfully integrated.

Virtual Reality Applications

• Procedural task rehearsal

• Fault isolation and troubleshooting

• Safety scenario simulation

• Systems familiarization

Students demonstrate proficiency in virtual environments before entering live aircraft settings, reducing risk while improving confidence and consistency.

SaaS Learning Platforms

• Track competency progression

• Measure comprehension and retention

• Enable adaptive instruction

• Support regulatory documentation

Together, these tools shift training from time-based instruction toward competency-based mastery.

5. Preparing for Emerging Aircraft Technologies

The next generation of aviation platforms will further strain workforce capacity:

• eVTOL aircraft

• Electric propulsion systems

• Hybrid avionics architectures

• New certification and safety standards

These platforms demand technicians trained not only in mechanical systems, but also in:

• Electrical diagnostics

• Software integration

• Systems engineering principles

Training models must anticipate these changes rather than react to them after workforce shortages deepen.

6. Shared Responsibility: Education and Industry

Transformation requires coordinated cooperation between stakeholders.

Educational institutions must:

• Modernize curriculum delivery

• Integrate industry environments into instruction

• Adopt performance-based learning systems

Industry leaders must:

• Open facilities for training partnerships

• Participate in curriculum design

• Treat workforce development as strategic investment

Regulatory bodies and professional organizations provide the framework; execution depends on regional and local collaboration.

Commercial aviation cannot remain solely a consumer of labor. It must become an active participant in talent development.

7. Conclusion: Scaling Solutions Through Integration

The aviation maintenance workforce gap will not be solved by expanding traditional classrooms alone. It must be addressed by:

• Utilizing commercial hangars as training assets

• Embedding education into operational environments

• Leveraging VR and digital learning platforms

• Aligning curriculum with real-world systems

• Mobilizing industry as an educational partner

This is not a departure from aviation tradition—it is an evolution of it.

Aviation has always advanced through collaboration between regulators, educators, and industry professionals. The next phase of workforce development must follow the same path.

The future of aviation safety, reliability, and growth depends on the workforce prepared today.

Author Perspective

This white paper reflects professional experience in founding and operating a FAA Part 147 aviation maintenance training program, at its founding the most accelerated curriculum in the nation, collaborating directly with FAA regulators, and working with national education organizations including the Aviation Technician Education Council (ATEC). It represents a commitment to advancing aviation workforce development through innovation, partnership, and measurable outcomes.

This white paper represents the author’s professional perspective and does not reflect the official position of any organization or regulatory agency.