Incremental vs Extreme Change
rc3.org quotes from a conversation between Malcolm Gladwel and Bill Simmons (which I haven’t read). This portion of Gladwell’s quote really intrigued me:
The [full court basketball] press doesn’t guarantee victory. It simply represents the underdog’s best chance of victory. It raises their odds from zero to maybe 50-50. I think, in fact, that you can argue that a pressing team is always going to have real difficulty against a truly elite team. But so what? Everyone, regardless of how they play, is going to have real difficulty against truly elite teams. It’s not a strategy for being the best. It’s a strategy for being better.
I have this conversation often with my friend Justin: Business strategy is not a zero-sum game. I think a lot of companies go out of business trying to find their silver bullet instead of just diversifying their revenue streams and ultimately building something stronger. As a culture we tend to value extreme change over incremental change, regardless of the costs associated.
Hi, I'm 
I think you’re right.
Although every company would ideally like to be #1, sometimes being a strong second fiddle is a strength in an of itself (Ex: Avis “We Try Harder”).
There can only be ONE number 1, but at the same time there can only be ONE number 2, number 3 and so on.
ahhh, change — one of my favorite topics. Let me just toss this in: depending on the size of the company and the tenure and discipline of management, incremental change often peters out. The 50/50 chances of a full court press may be better odds than most incremental change initiatives ever realize.
Incremental change is an essential component in any lasting change. When I led customer service, we made hundreds of small changes like putting FAQ’s on the phone, then on the net, then added a customer satisfaction survey to the phone, later to the net, then we shifted schedules so we could cover 7 days/week, 12 hours/day. The challenge always was, “what else can we do to improve the customer experience”. Without that discipline and constant focussed discussion, your only option left is extreme change, which rarely works.
You really need to read that conversation between Gladwell and Simmons (although its quite long)…as you probably already can tell, it addresses his New Yorker piece.
It’s also surprising how much Gladwell knows about ALL sports – he’s like a human encyclopedia
Here’s the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090513/part1
When it comes to companies lacking the understanding about diversifying revenue streams, look at the NYTimes. Their future plans are to continue with ad revenue. If they were more diversified, by fully appreciating the value of their brand, they might scrape together enough cash to own one brick of their beautiful new building.
On the question of incremental change, I think you’ll love this article about Jeff Bezos.
Quote: “At a fulfillment center recently, one of our Kaizen experts asked me, ‘I’m in favor of a clean fulfillment center, but why are you cleaning? Why don’t you eliminate the source of dirt?’ I felt like the Karate Kid.”
Note that in Bezos’ case, incremental change is leading him to be #1.
A very good point, Noah. There are parallels between Gladwell’s basketball postulate and the success of tech titans. Most tech companies—including Microsoft, Google, & Intel—all make their business from incremental changes from existing technologies.
A notable exception to that rule is Apple which occasionally goes for the gusto and creates something completely wild like the iPhone or desktop metaphor. Even then, the iPod and iTunes are iterative.
In my own field, rendered animation hasn’t has a breakthrough change in decades. Of course, interactive video & motion graphics have been huge.