What medieval knights can teach about disruption – essay bei Veit Etzold for BCG perspectives ()

A company’s greatest strength can become its greatest weakness—like the armor of the medieval knights, which became useless as warfare evolved. In my latest essay for BCG perspective, I show, how successful companies do not wait for others to disrupt them. They disrupt themselves. They dare to think that their current advantages can be neutralized or even turned against them.

Here you find the article. For your convenience, it is also shown below.

 

The demise of the medieval knights came in the Battle of Crécy, in 1346, when English troops faced off against the French during the Hundred Years’ War.

The French troops, who had a fivefold advantage in numbers, were clad in armor—armor that had helped them prevail many times before, including at the Battle of Hastings during the Norman conquest of England. But now, more than two centuries later, the English army had the edge. Armed with longbows, its archers had a deadly advantage in terms of range and accuracy. They could also fire with enough force to penetrate certain types of armor.

The French knights were cut down by a hail of arrows. Knights were shot out of their saddles and lay helplessly on the ground, their heavy armor making it difficult for them to rise. They were easy prey for the English troops, who made short work of them. Thus, an advantage—heavy armor—was turned into a disadvantage.

Disruption in the Business World

The knights are long gone, but the underlying story continues in the business world. Disruption happens when companies make the same mistakes as the medieval knights. Think Kodak, Blockbuster, Atari.

The reason why most companies fail to adapt to disruptive change is that they cannot imagine a world without their successful business. Established airlines could not imagine that low-cost carriers, with their no-frills offerings, could gain such a cost advantage. Uber and Airbnb are disrupting the transportation, travel, and tourism industries. Netflix upended the home video industry. Platforms like Spotify have radically altered the music industry.

The stunning fact about disruption is that most disruptors attack an industry they had never been part of. Paypal was not invented by a bank, Skype was not invented by a phone company, and iTunes was not invented by a record company.

From Narrow to Open Thinking

So, how can leaders foresee disruptive forces that might destroy their business models? There is no easy answer, but one step is to expand rather than narrow your thinking.

In a TED@BCG talk, BCG’s Luc de Brabandere asked two questions: The first: “An example of a car is….?” It’s easy to answer this question, because the amount of answers is limited to the amount of car makers: Volkswagen, Ford, Toyota, and so on. His second question was not as straightforward: “A car is an example of…?”  Here, the range of potential answers is unlimited: a car could be an example of mobility, status, or desire but also of danger, accidents, or pollution.

When you see a car as an example of mobility, not status, you could conclude that there might be people for whom the utility offered by a car eclipses the status conferred by its possession. With that lens, start-ups like Uber begin to make a lot of sense. You could also think of a car as an example of transportation and delivery. And suddenly you have Uber drivers delivering parcels and posing a threat to logistics companies.

If we remember the words of Shimon Peres, quoted above, the first question—An example of a car is?—deals with remembering, which is easy because we know the past. The second question—A car is an example of?—deals with imagining, which is harder because the possibilities are so wide open.

Disrupting Oneself

Nimble start-ups are adept at developing innovative business models. Bigger, more established companies, on the other hand, tend to be preoccupied with executing or optimizing their existing business models rather than discovering new ones. One type of company drives disruption, the story goes, while the other is victimized by it.

The question, if you’re an established company (in our analogy, a medieval knight), is whether it’s possible to continue to implement a business model—particularly one that’s contributed strong growth and performance—and discover a new one at the same time. Can a company be that agile? According to Stefan Gross-Selbeck, a managing director at BCG Digital Ventures, the answer is yes. In a TED@BCG talk, he uses the example of Netflix to show how. Netflix started as a disruptor, using mail-order delivery of videos to create a huge business. With the rise of broadband Internet, however, it discovered a new business model centered on distribution via streaming media, effectively undercutting the approach that made it so successful to begin with.


Disrupting oneself is not easy. You have to be willing to question the things that have made you successful in the past. Your greatest strength—your armor, so to speak—could be rendered obsolete. It might even become a liability.

 

 

 

  • A company’s greatest strength can become its greatest weakness—like the armor of the medieval knights, which became useless as warfare evolved.
  • In business, new players can disrupt existing business models and upend the business architecture of entire industries.
  • Successful companies do not wait for others to disrupt them. They disrupt themselves. They dare to think that their current advantages can be neutralized or even turned against them.
Keeping sharing simple...

2 comments

  1. Ömer Atiker

    Lovely story, but…. I like the image of Knights, and how an innovation made them obsolete. It reminded me of another innovation, the stirrup, which came to Europe a few hundred years earlier. It was crucial for the invention of the knights’ powerful attacks with a lance. Besides, I myself use “fighting a dragon” as a metaphor for disruption. The dragon has all the obvious advantages (power, armour, size, wings – and of course fiery breath) and can still be defeated by a knight, who knows where to put the sword…. In relation to today’s business world, I dare to disagree with your story. Yes, the things that used to work well can be a dangerous heritage, rendering companies unable to react to sudden change. And I’m with you all the way, that we should think of value, of what our offer means to the customer, instead of focussing on the actual product or service we provide today. But “new players can disrupt existing markets” isn’t really such a new insight anymore. “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, which coined the term disruption, was published 1997, almost 20 years ago. Also, “successful companies do not wait for others to disrupt them” does sound nice, but is a bit trite. Netflix may be a prime example, but there are so very few of these! What kind of company does really disrupt itself, regularly and successfully? Hardly any. Okay, Apple killed the Sony Walkman with the iPod, then killed the iPod with its own iPhone. IBM managed to move from hardware to services, for which I applaud them. Kloeckner is transforming itself, trying to change the whole steel trading business. But that’s about it. Most companies, even the successful ones (if not to say, especially not the successful ones), do NOT disrupt anything, and definitely not themselves. Because it is not only hard, but often impossible to fundamentally change a larger company. Geoffrey A. Moore (“Zone to win”) is one of the very few who addressed that problem. A corporation built and managed to deliver superior performance, does not have the organisation, the people, the incentives and processes to really build something that kills its own business. Nobody is getting paid to do so, and all performance numbers used to manage are based on existing KPIs. How do you reward wild guesses, which might (or might not) become the next big thing? So “you must disrupt yourself to stay successful” is a pretty rallying cry. It might even have some truth to it. But to actually make that happen is a whole lot of work. It requires both an organisational and a cultural shift, which makes it very hard indeed to implement. Still, we work on that.

    Antworten

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

* Ein Kommentar erscheint nur nach einer Genehmigung von Dr. Etzold
* A comment appears only after approval by Dr. Etzold