Hint: They're never really underdogs to begin with
While reading Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book David & Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, I couldn’t help but notice how analogous some of his key ideas were to the business world we live in today, particularly in the agency world for which I work. In David & Goliath, Gladwell challenges how we look at the underdog, and how their apparent weaknesses against a much bigger and stronger opponent – at least on the face of it – really serve as their strengths when overcoming the odds. In fact, when you look more closely at those stories of success, Gladwell points out the underdogs were actually never underdogs to begin with and that the odds of them succeeding were in their favor all along. In the agency ecosystem, there are many Davids and Goliaths. There are the mammoth network agencies that have global scale, thousands of employees and a collection of smaller agencies (i.e. the Goliaths); there are the mid-sized agencies not yet swallowed up by the mammoth network agencies; there are the smaller agencies specializing in specific practice areas; and there are the tiny boutique shops fighting for every project and scope, just trying to stay alive (i.e. the Davids). In this blog, I wanted to highlight a few concepts Gladwell articulates in his book and how I think it uniquely applies to the agency world. Afterall, who doesn’t like a good David & Goliath story!
Changing the Rules of the Game
Everyone knows the story of David & Goliath – the story of how a small shepherd boy beat a 7-foot giant warrior in ancient Palestine 3,000 years ago. It’s the ultimate underdog story in all of history. During a time when wars between two sides were often decided by one-to-one combats, all odds seemed to be against the little boy with no previous combat experience, armed only with a slingshot and going up against a proven war hero armed with full body armor and the most modern artillery those times had to offer. In short, Goliath was the ultimate warrior: he had size, strength and had never lost. David was the exact opposite: he was small, young and had never fought in combat prior to this fight. So at first glance it was easy to say that Goliath was the overwhelming favorite, right? Gladwell points out that Goliath was only considered the favorite based on the assumption that they fight in the traditional head-to-head combat that was done in those days. Fist-to-Fist. Sword-to-sword. But the truth was that Goliath never had a chance. David was a skilled slingshot that had the ability to sling a rock with the speed and accuracy of a modern day pistol. There was no armor that could defend against a shot to the forehead and David knew this. It’s kind of like that scene in Indiana Jones when he confronts a swordsman who pulls out a giant sword and after showing off some impressive moves, Jones simply pulls out his gun and shoots him. Simply put, David changed the rules of the game such that the odds were in his favor, much to the shock and demise of his opponent Goliath. In the agency world it’s the same. The mammoth network agencies have the size, scale and capabilities that make them as successful as they are, and as long as they’re playing that same game, say in traditional TV advertising or CRM, they will always have the edge. But an agency that is smaller, less resourced but more focused at the bleeding-edge of where the industry is going, say in social marketing or CEM, stands to change the game in such a way that tilts it in their favor and effectively exposes the mammoth agency’s apparent strengths into glaring weaknesses. In this situation, as in history, Goliath does not have a chance. Never did.
One of the most fascinating concepts in this book is the notion of The Inverted “U”. Basically it is the principle that suggests that having too less of something is not only not good, but having too much of that same thing is not good either. In essence, there is a point where having too much of something starts to get just as bad as having less of it. To illustrate this idea, Gladwell uses the example of income and parenting effectiveness. Here’s a literal illustration of the idea:
At one extreme you have parents with low income, living in poverty. Their ability to provide
effective parenting is challenged because they often have to work multiple jobs
to make ends meet, are often a single parent, and can’t afford the time or
resources towards their child. Not
surprisingly, increasing that income would proportionally improve their situation
as it would mean more resources for the child, more happiness, thus enabling more
effective parenting. Makes sense when
you think about it as I’m sure most of us parents would think we’d benefit with
more income (I know I would!). But as
Gladwell points out, there’s a point where mo’ money means mo’ problems. There’s an income level that when passed,
makes it more challenging to be an effective parent. Take the other extreme example. Parents who are millionaires face a different
set of challenges in that their prosperous circumstances make it increasingly
difficult to instill the very values and perspectives they grew up
with. It’s hard to teach your child the
value of money when they know you can afford everything, and it’s hard to teach
your child the value of hard work when they really never have to work a day in
their life – at least not out of necessity.
This idea of The Inverted “U” is very applicable to the agency
world. Having too little revenue,
resources and clients certainly make it difficult for any agency to invest in
the activities that will help them grow and become more effective. Conversely, having too many resources,
projects and even clients, at some point starts to decrease the ability to be
an effective agency as increased bureaucracy may limit flexibility and
agility, increased processes may stifle
innovation and creativity, and an increased client-base may challenge the
ability to focus. The Inverted “U”
suggests there’s an optimal point for all this, and being on either side of
this point is not ideal and it might make those agencies vulnerable to
competitive threats.
Big Fish, Little Pond
Another intriguing idea explored in the book is the idea that being a big fish in a small pond is better than being a small fish in a big pond. In other words, for the agency folk, you’re better off being the best in a small agency than being mediocre in a large agency. The analogy Gladwell uses in the book is choosing what university to attend. In one story, he points out a student whose passion was in the sciences and wanted nothing more than to be a scientist. Having excelled in high school and doing everything right, this student earned her acceptance into a top Ivy League university as well as a local state university (her safety school), both of which offered great science programs. But she decided to attend the Ivy League school for the same reasons any student would: more prestige, better reputation and unparalleled academic excellence. What she found out quickly, however, was that she was consistently near the bottom of her class, found it difficult to keep up, and later dropped out of the science program altogether to pursue a different field of study just to stay at the school. Relatively speaking, she couldn’t compete at the same level as her Ivy League classmates when it came to science, not because she was not intelligent (afterall she was the top of her class in high school), but because there were simply a disproportionate number of highly intelligent people in her class (like any top school). She was on the wrong side of the bell curve, a bell curve that would put her at the top at most other universities. But worst of all, it forced her to drop out of a field she was so passionate about and no doubt took a few hits to her confidence along the way. Had she gone to a local university, Gladwell argues, she would’ve been more likely to stay and excel in the science program, pursue a profession in the field she was so passionate for, and be happier and more confident as a result (and in classic Gladwell fashion, he shows remarkable statistics that prove this point). When it comes to the agency world, this principle suggests that the agencies that have a competitive advantage in one area, say in analytics or mobile, are far better off to compete in those specific areas than to compete in areas that cover a broader spectrum of services where other agencies might be bigger and stronger. Of course, the ideal situation is to be the big fish in the big pond!
Another intriguing idea explored in the book is the idea that being a big fish in a small pond is better than being a small fish in a big pond. In other words, for the agency folk, you’re better off being the best in a small agency than being mediocre in a large agency. The analogy Gladwell uses in the book is choosing what university to attend. In one story, he points out a student whose passion was in the sciences and wanted nothing more than to be a scientist. Having excelled in high school and doing everything right, this student earned her acceptance into a top Ivy League university as well as a local state university (her safety school), both of which offered great science programs. But she decided to attend the Ivy League school for the same reasons any student would: more prestige, better reputation and unparalleled academic excellence. What she found out quickly, however, was that she was consistently near the bottom of her class, found it difficult to keep up, and later dropped out of the science program altogether to pursue a different field of study just to stay at the school. Relatively speaking, she couldn’t compete at the same level as her Ivy League classmates when it came to science, not because she was not intelligent (afterall she was the top of her class in high school), but because there were simply a disproportionate number of highly intelligent people in her class (like any top school). She was on the wrong side of the bell curve, a bell curve that would put her at the top at most other universities. But worst of all, it forced her to drop out of a field she was so passionate about and no doubt took a few hits to her confidence along the way. Had she gone to a local university, Gladwell argues, she would’ve been more likely to stay and excel in the science program, pursue a profession in the field she was so passionate for, and be happier and more confident as a result (and in classic Gladwell fashion, he shows remarkable statistics that prove this point). When it comes to the agency world, this principle suggests that the agencies that have a competitive advantage in one area, say in analytics or mobile, are far better off to compete in those specific areas than to compete in areas that cover a broader spectrum of services where other agencies might be bigger and stronger. Of course, the ideal situation is to be the big fish in the big pond!
Disadvantage as the Advantage
Finally, one of the more contentious but more intriguing concepts in David & Goliath is the idea that there are some disadvantages or “desired difficulties” that actually serve as advantages. The case in point Gladwell makes in his book is that Dyslexia – a developmental disorder that makes reading difficult in otherwise normally intelligent individuals – is a desired difficulty and can turn into an advantage. He argues that having Dyslexia, which often labels individuals as disadvantaged in the classroom and therefore classic underdogs, often serves to be the single biggest advantage of successful individuals with the disorder, such as David Boies, Richard Branson, and Charles Schwab. Gladwell explains that having the disorder meant that they had to inordinately develop other skills such as listening succinctly, or paying close attention to detail, or deconstructing arguments to compensate for their lack of ability to read fluently. And by mastering these complementary skills, it uniquely prepared these individuals to succeed in their respective fields that places high value on these specific skills. It’s really a remarkable concept, and the story of David Boies is inspiring. So how does this apply to agencies? Well, for agencies seemingly having a disadvantage might actually be a “desired difficulty” in that having such a “disorder” would allow them to focus on solutions that work around the problem such that it might develop into a competitive advantage. For example, say an agency’s disadvantage was that they lack experience in a specific industry. This may actually be a desired difficulty in that an agency would be forced to apply existing solutions from other industries they’re familiar with to create new and innovative solutions for the industry that they know little about, potentially creating a new value proposition that other agencies with more experience in the industry haven’t thought of. Now, you wouldn’t necessarily wish to have this disorder as an agency, or would you?
/LC