Just finished a great article by Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker, on how and why underdogs win when the odds are stacked against them. Which raised some interesting questions in my mind about the implications of this for businesses.
Because the answer can be boiled down to one simple lesson (if you like, it's Eating The Big Fish in one line).
It's not simply a case of zigging while others zag, in that 'do the unexpected'/'do your own thing sense' (good as that might be). It's about a much more knowing, deliberate, even aggressive breaking of the rules (whatever these might be, whether formally agreed or unwritten conventions). Because, more often than not, these rules are defined by the strong to defend their position.
This is a situation many smaller/'weaker' businesses and brands find themselves in, but which they do nothing about. Instead, they stick to rules and conventions that reinforce their position, as if they are scared to do otherwise, or locked in by training that says 'this is the right way', or simply because it just feels 'wrong' in some way; not the honourable 'done thing'.
The fly weight shepard boy vs the heavy weight Philistine warrior is the archetypal expression of this rule breaking. Settling major battles using champions engaged in one-on-one combat was fairly common in Biblical times. But like pistols at dawn, there were clear rules of engagement. Champions, fully armoured and sworded up, would meet in no mans land, observe formalities, cross swords and fight.
But what did David do? He rejected the armour and sword as too heavy (unconventional…some would say foolish), then after engaging in some long range 'banter', charged at Goliath, possibly gaining important territorial advantage in the process (bad form), before shooting him in the head from a distance (like Indy in Raiders). And that definitely wasn't on!
So David won, but he did so by breaking the rules (albeit rules that favoured the much more powerful Goliath): he cheated, he was dishonourable, and he was happy to cause 'offense' by ignoring popular convention. But he walked away victorious.
In fact, the Bible is great for such rule breaking victories. There's Gideon's 300 defeating the Midianites thru deception. Or even Jesus' pacifist self sacrifice precipitating an unstoppable revolution, where the Jewish people were expecting, and the Roman's could have defeated, a conventional militant rebellion.
MG illustrates his argument with many such rule breaking examples. And he quotes political scientist Ian Arreguin-Toft, to provide some numerical underpinning. Examining every war fought in the last 200 years which conformed to the David vs Goliath mismatch (in this definition, Goliath's forces had to be at least 10x as powerful), Toft found that David still won 28.5% of the time (possibly surprising in its own right). But where the David force was a rule breaker everything changed, and they won a staggeringly improbable 63.6% of the time.
From the original David via early revolutionary America (ironically), Vietnam and on to post-conventional war Iraq, it's only in breaking with expectations that the weak can fight on an equal footing.
The problem with this tho, and why it's a difficult lesson to for us to learn and apply elsewhere, is that when you view David thru the eyes of Goliath (remembering that we in the west are usually in a position of strength, militarily speaking, nowadays), you see something not altogether positive: irregulars and insurgents willing sometimes to step over that line generally accepted to mark the boundary between right and wrong, good and evil, to defend what they see as their rights and freedom. Even to be a terrorist, in our current perceptions.
But that shouldn't disguise the fact that David's is a good strategy for those in a position of weakness, not just in war but sport and business. Nor does it mean being aggressive and 'war-like' in your approach. And neither is it an argument for anything goes anarchy. Some laws and rules are universally right and proper, and there not to be broken. Plus you don't want to end up in prison necessarily!
Rather it's an argument for not playing by 'rules' and practices that simply favour the strong and reinforce the status quo. And to do more than play lip service to this ethos. Because there is a far greater chance of success in (really) breaking free of the constraints set in place by those on top or in power...to the point admittedly that you might well feel you are (or even be accused of) 'cheating', or being 'dishonest'. It's about not being scared of causing 'cultural offense' or being 'socially horrifying' (to quote Gladwell)...in whatever context it is you opperate - telling retailers your brand will never prove promote for instance.
Just remember that 'they' would say that wouldn't they. And would you rather gain advantage or lose appropriately?
