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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS