Sometimes, when change is required, there is an inherent need to blow things up. When those moments arise, it's important to ensure that collateral damage is minimized because, if everything is destroyed, you’re starting from scratch. The trick is to hit the intended target.

Come 1989, Kronos was a fully formed, fully functioning, and increasingly profitable company. But the sales model that had created a groundswell of momentum was bogging down. As Kronos offerings became increasingly complex, it was hard for an outside sales force to keep up. Mark believed the solution was to transform a sales model that mainly utilized outside vendors to one based on building an inside sales force.

So, Mark was indeed about to blow things up. Naturally, then, he sought the advice of a bombardier.

Arnold Daniels had been one of those rare WWII navigator/ bombardiers who was both skilled at his function and blessed to have survived through a harrowing thirty-five successful missions (with “success” defined in both targeted bomb drops and surviving to tell the tale).

Thirty-five missions might not sound like a lot to a lay person. But the average life expectancy of a bomber crew was fifteen missions. And gunners and bombardiers were specifically targeted by enemy craft, so their life spans were often measured in weeks.

Arnold and his crew were considered such a great team that the U.S. Army Air Corps (USAAC), having lost such a high percentage of lives and planes, wanted to better understand what made these particular bombers tick so that future crews could be assembled to replicate the squad's success rate.

To that end, Arnold's crew was put through a series of tests designed to determine both common and unique traits within the group, as certain characteristics would make for a good squad member, while others would separate the gunners from the bombardiers and the pilots from the crewmen.

What the USAAC was able to prove was that not all airmen were created equal. A series of questions pertaining mainly to math, vocabulary, and logic were asked against a ticking clock. The test was then scored and evaluated not just by numerical score, but by which specific answers were correct and which were wrong.