Creating Strategic Disadvantage
Should the potential benefits of overcoming difficulties motivate leaders to intentionally create strategic disadvantage? That’s the question Malcolm Gladwell introduced yesterday in an unplugged session during the World Business Forum. It’s been bouncing around in my head ever since. (see yesterday’s post: Useful Disadvantage)
Disadvantages create difficulty. Difficulties make us. On the other hand, ease creates indulgence. Indulgence destroys us. Is that reason enough to intentionally make life difficult?
Disadvantages define our story – the more arduous the difficulty the more defining the disadvantage – think Helen Keller (blind, deaf, and mute) or Nelson Mandela (27 years in prison). It’s ghastly, however, to imagine using a 27 year prison term as a leadership development tool.
Creative disadvantage is the path to efficiency and competitive advantage. Does this mean product development teams should function like NASA engineers during the Apollo 13 crisis? They saved lives with duct tape and tubing.
Strategic disadvantage isn’t simply challenging people; it’s intentionally withholding help. More than that, it’s intentionally creating useful difficulty.
Strategic disadvantage could be useful if:
- A greater good is obvious. Sadism isn’t a healthy corporate strategy.
- Creating strategic disadvantage is part of organizational culture – toughness is part of who you are and who you want to become. Toughness doesn’t come easy, think military boot camp.
- Leaders are included in the strategic disadvantage mix. If leaders are excluded it’s indulgent elitism.
Overcomers inspire us. Overcoming personal challenges eventually instills us with confidence, insight, and satisfaction. The tough term is eventually. Overcoming eventually strengthens. Getting to the strength is the tough part.
What are the pros and cons of creating strategic disadvantage?
How does the expression, “strategic disadvantage program” sit with you? What might it look like?
**********
Related Articles:
Getting Smart at Being Wrong – 10 Ways to Get Good at Being Wrong.
8 Techniques that Help People Want Help. – Great managers don’t change people they create environments where people change themselves.
**********
Don’t miss a single issue of Leadership Freak, subscribe today. It’s free. It’s private. It’s always practical and brief.
Go to the main page of Leadership Freak by clicking the banner at the top of this page, look in the right-hand navigation bar, enter your email and click subscribe. Your email address is always kept private. Note: if it doesn’t arrive, check your spam filter for a confirmation email.
Hi Dan, I missed out on your discussion of useful disadvantage yesterday, but wanted to chime in this morning. Have to admit the word makes me uncomfortable because in a business sense it means you’re behind a competitor. From the human development sense, though, I think the concept works. I see validation in the fact that nothing improves a process like overloading it to find the cracks and make fixing them imperative.
For leaders, one concept would be to withhold resources until people have applied their creativity. Buying your resolution to a problem doesn’t develop your people. Another example would be intentional choices not to put a capability in house, as a way of forcing your organization to form alliances that will strengthen it in the long run.
The danger in this idea to me is twofold: First, that your people will misunderstand and you or your organization will get a reputation for being mean and tighfisted. And second, that while you’re allowing some time for growth, your competitor gets too much of a lead on you. Of course, in the long run those well-developed people will be a huge advantage, provided you can retain them.
Greg,
I find your comment very helpful Greg. Focusing on human development makes sense.
If we take this idea to the human dimension motivations seem to be a central component.
Thanks for your insights.
Dan
I also have a problem with the useful disadvantage concept as presented here. Boot camp and even imprisonment were “preparatory” exercises. I would not think while a soldier is in battle we would want to withhold resources to make a better soldier; that is why they have training exercises.
I feel the same about my employees – prepare them with development programs that tax them and then provide the resources they need to excel in their daily work.
Hi Jim,
Your focus on the problem of disadvantage during war is fascinating. I’ll toss out that most students witness to the fact that they learn more when they get into the real world they start learning. I’m not sure it has to be an either or decision.
Having said that, battle terminology clearly illustrates the danger of creating strategic disadvantages.
Thank you for jumping in…
Dan
Great point. In a 25-year career I can’t recall ever being resourced for an operation at the level the regulation called for, or at the level we enjoyed in training. In that way the disadvantage was sometimes imposed at a more critical time, and we learned to deal on the fly. I think the learning and stretching still happened faster in a more austere environment, but I don’t think anyone would recommend creating those situations on purpose.
How does the expression, “strategic disadvantage program” sit with you? What might it look like?
Not well, lol. How bout Office of Disadvantage Development Strategies? ODDS. 😉
Is strategic disadvantage a more intense variation on a SWOT analysis? If a team focused on Threats, they would look at all of the weaknesses, however, without impacting service. As others have noted, doing this as a safe exercise makes sense, real time, not so sure.
As a tool to enhance learning, strategic disadvantage does make sense, prolonged, probably too much stress for decreasingly limited return. So, one would have to conduct a very thoughtful risk/benefit analysis.
This does appear to be an untapped field worthy of review, should be interesting.
Wow, have I seen some disadvantaged development strategies in my time. Not sure we need to institutionalize that.
Doc,
Love your ODD comment and questions.
The thing that is perplexing is Gladwell seems to suggest leaders should actively, perhaps aggressively strategically make life hard. It goes, in my opinion, well beyond a SWOT analysis.
Just thought I would make the concept even more uncomfortable.
I’m interested in how this idea plays out, dies, thrives or adapts.
Cheers,
Dan
It did sound like he was pushing the envelope. It would have to be an extremely savvy leader who is constantly sensitive to subtle (and not so subtle) nuances/feedback to determine what level of discomfort still produces positive results. Is the leader that person or better facilitated by external agent?
That discomfort is not just with the employees, as it ultimately flows onto the customer. Customers might not see the short term benefit of that discomfort and move on to someone who doesn’t discomfort them.
And we know that often leadership is so far ahead of the change curve that they have to count on others to have their fingers on the customer pulse. Every step that potentially can disconnect leadership from a direct relationship with a customer has potential for negative outcome.
Would think there still has be a significant level of transparency (accountability) of process which presents for another conundrum. So is a leader open about this process?
If you are open about creating strategic disadvantage, do you still get that same level of discomfort? You know that I know that you are placing me at a disadvantage, so I am not as disadvantaged.–sounds like a Vizzini quote from Princess Bride. Which wine do you want me to drink?
Doc if there are leaders out there that are not on a daily basis already facing strategic disadvantages ever present in our dynamic and changing environment with global transparency and accountability then perhaps they have imbibed way too much wine and are simply not moving and stagnant but more importantly remind me again why we would need them? 🙂 I guess if they bring the wine I can hang for a while. 🙂
Well Al, it may come down to intent and fervor of the leader in pushing the strategic disadvantages perspective, ETOH disinhibitions aside. (How did I know that would get a response from you!?)
The questions on a psychological basis may be, how well does implementing strategic disadvantage sustain long term.
Does it cause morale atrophy? Does it traumatize more in the long term than advance in the short term? And who determines that?
If the goal is to have people take risks, not sure, would repeatedly withholding help cause mental scar tissue build-up, even if the ‘goal’ is achieved. At what price? Again, citing some of Dan’s examples, yes, they persevered, at what cost? And is there another way?
Dear Dan,
Strategic disadvantage is so surprising for me that I never thought seriously on this idea. Intentionally creating difficulty encourages one to expand options and horizon. I also believe that intentionally holding support for time being create difficulty but increases strength and will power. But I am not sure whether continuously holding support or creating difficulty actually increases strength or enhances our horizon or not. So, as long as creating difficulty increases strength and stability, it is fine, but we need more analysis to find out “How much”. For me it looks like emotional resilience and emotional toughness. It means in business or societies we need to use our emotion in such a way that creates growth, love and equity. It also means that when we support more to our near and dear, we actually forget to know that we paralyse them. So, less or no support or even withholding support creates tension and that tension is positive in nature. It always broaden horizon and maximises options.
I seem to be drawn to stories about deprivation – such as Unbroken about a WWII soldier who endured incredible hardships as a POW and stories of the Holocaust. Or maybe it’s the other way around — stories get “legs” for the reasons you identified — “overcomers inspire us.”
I know my tendency as an individual is to try to avoid situations that may make things so difficult they must be “overcome”; the same was true as a leader – I tried to make things “easy.” Perhaps the secret lies in an acceptance of the role such challenges play in our lives – spending a lot of energy avoiding and bemoaning challenges is probably counterproductive compared to spending energy seeking help from ourpeers and being open to what the challenges are here to teach us.
The formula for change was learned in an undergraduate class long ago and I’ve used, taught and shared it many times since. Your post reminds me of how universally accurate it is regardless of venue.
Discomfort or pain + insight, awareness + the will to do something + action = change. Or, unmet basic needs + disparity in access to resources + motivation, desire, energy, will + Wall Street protest = change (of some sort).
Awesome. Thanks.
I remember reading, someplace last year, “…when you are comfortable seek discomfort, when you are uncomfortable, seek comfort…” That line has helped me create what I know see as stretch goals for myself. For example, when I was asked to led a workshop that I had never led before, instead of one that I had, that line above helped me take the “disadvantage” head on and I grew from the experience. Also, it has helped me aspire to make career changes (everything is going well in my current role, why change?…seek discomfort…and, I’ve already grown just from the process of looking to change my job). My thought, however, I chose to create my own “disadvantage”. I think leaders that purposefully plan disadvantage must be extremely careful it doesn’t back fire. I don’t think strategic disadvantage is in my “tool bag” of leadership strategies just yet…
Thanks for posting, Dan!
That means… you do your chore efficiently and scrupulously, and do not worry about results, rather let the results evolve in its own spirit…. the passion that churns the affairs is poised to bring positive results what ever may be the disadvantage..
Living and working in China is a Strategic Disadvantage. At least in the business of teaching and learning. China’s great firewall is Challenge and the benefit of not having free and easy access to Google Doc and twitter is so hard to see. I can say from an Technology Director’s perspective it does force us to come up with new and different solutions. It’s not easy but when we have our successes it’s a rewarding experience.
Ann ditto Greg’s comment, absolutely awesome. thanks, another post headed
for my quote book. 🙂