Blind spots in a car are the areas of the road that the rearview and sideview mirrors do not show. A driver must constantly be aware of them — and of the potentially deadly perils they can conceal.
Businesses can have blind spots, too — and they can be equally costly, causing companies to overinvest in risky ventures or fail to take advantage of emerging opportunities. Successful leaders are careful to identify their company’s blind spots and introduce mechanisms to ensure that no harm comes from them.
One common source of businesses’ blind spots is judgment bias. This arises when executives have overly narrow views of their industry, underestimate their competitors’ capabilities, or fail to see how the competitive landscape is changing.
Illustration: June Hsu
A good example of a company that suffered from this kind of blind spot is Nestle. For decades, the Swiss multinational defined itself strictly as one the world’s leading food companies. The label created a self-imposed restriction, constraining Nestle to sell a relatively narrow range of products.
However, in 2010, the company’s CEO, Paul Bulcke, redefined Nestle as a “nutrition, health and wellness” company. It was a brilliant strategic decision, allowing the firm to offer dozens of new product lines and services.
Many executive teams are overconfident about their company’s competitive strength. In front of their board, they rattle off exaggerated claims about where the company stands; about 80 percent of annual reports claim that their company is “the leader in the market.”
Unfortunately, this kind of arrogance can lead to complacency and competitive failure.
Many financial institutions, for example, are inadequately prepared to confront the new players entering their markets.
Google, which is quietly testing the car-insurance waters, holds a banking license. Meanwhile, Square, Paypal and the start-up company Affirm are already processing a large share of online payments.
In today’s fast-paced world, it takes only a single technological improvement, price advantage, or great viral advertising campaign for a competitor to leap ahead. New players can materialize seemingly out of nowhere. The taxi company Uber did not exist five years ago; it is now valued at more than US$40 billion. The rapid expansion of Alibaba threatens Western retailers that never expected to face a Chinese competitor. Driverless cars and pilotless planes will soon transform many industries.
Another frequent cause of companies’ blind spots is historic bias, or what psychologists call an “anchoring bias” — the assumption that something that was true in the past will continue to be true in the future. A long track record of success can warp executives’ analysis, distort their decisionmaking and leave them blind to incipient paradigm shifts or rapid changes in a market.
When the US retailer Target opened its first store in Canada in March 2013, its management assumed that the recipe of its success in the US could be replicated north of the border. Instead, just 22 months later, the company announced that it would close all of its 133 Canadian stores and lay off 17,000 people. Target’s US experience turned out to be a bad predictor of what it could expect in Canada.
Overcoming historic biases requires questioning an industry’s taboos. For example, if the creators of television series like Game of Thrones, the most pirated show in history, stopped fighting copyright infringement, they could seize an opportunity. Advertisements directly embedded in the show would reach five million additional — illegal — viewers, in effect doubling their audience.
The television industry is not alone in failing to question and revise its traditional models, methods and operations. The postal industry, for example, could learn a lesson from airlines, train companies, travel agencies and hotels, all of which increase their prices during periods of high demand. The assumption that the price of mailing a letter or shipping a package should remain constant throughout the year is ripe to be challenged.
Guarding against blind spots takes careful thought, but executives and boards can put processes in place to protect against them.
For starters, companies should diversify their talent pool. Managers should ensure that they have access to people who think differently from them. Iconoclasts and outside experts should be invited to share their views. At least 20 percent of a company’s board should be composed of individuals from outside the industry. Views from other generations and other parts of the world should be sought and solicited.
Executives should make special efforts to break taboos, examine unchallenged assumptions and question their businesses’ most sacred rules.
Even simple methods, like writing down and challenging every assumption on which a company has based its strategy, can yield valuable insights.
Every company should assign someone to play the role of “dissenter.” Sometimes called the “China breaker,” this person should be given time during board meetings to throw the good dishware against the wall and see what can be made of the pieces.
Industries are becoming increasingly complex and global competition is mounting. The companies that will be best placed to survive will be those that took the proper precautions to avoid being run off the road.
Estelle Metayer is founder of Competia and an adjunct professor at McGill University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS