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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS