Once one recognizes that times are different, the next step is the hard one. Once you realize that we are entering The Epoch of Uncertainty, where the only certainty is a constant uncertainty, the hard work begins, because now you come to recognize that the strategies, the tools, the methods, metrics and manners of the “old world” no longer work like you expect them to. I can give you many examples, but I sense that you don’t need much convincing anymore. But what the hell… every day new examples of a failure of our 20th century (and older) icons to demonstrate that they are prepared for the future literally speak for themselves… Arthur Anderson, the Roman Catholic Church, the FBI and CIA, WorldCom, Enron, Stanley Works, Arafat, Ferrari’s “gifting” of a victory of their number one driver over their number two driver; these are all examples of institutional failures that demonstrate that a new grammar is necessary – a new set of “rules for living” if you will.
In our upcoming book, Ryan and I talk about this situation as an abolition of context. When the Zeitgeist “switches” from an old grammar to a new one we can no longer depend on our previous strategies and our previous tactics. The circumstance that the world finds itself in today necessitates new approaches, new methods and new tools.
The strategic approach that is the first that we have embraced is an asymmetrical strategic orientation. When you design a strategy with an asymmetrical framework you look at the strengths of an adversary… not their weaknesses. If you really think about it the terrorists used our greatest strengths against us… orientation of freedom of movement and minimal governmental intrusion wherever and whenever possible. And, our response in Afghanistan also was developed via an asymmetrical mindset. We didn’t send in massive numbers of troops with long and cumbersome supply lines. Instead, we let a small group of “survivors” with extremely high tech communication resources (imagine talking directly to the pentagon while engaged in battle) forage for themselves.
The best example of asymmetry I can think of is the strategy being employed by the American Electric Power, Inc., the country’s largest utility company. Two years ago, AEP was accused by the Environmental Protection Agency of violating the clean air act in the southeast corner of Ohio in the town of Cheshire, where they have a high sulfur content coal burning plant. American Electric finalized a deal with all 221 residents to buy the entire town. All ninety homes will be purchased at three times their market value (if they were sellable at all). The April 16th deal is the first time in our history that a company has dissolved an entire town. I know what you’re thinking… what about Love Canal and Times Beach? In these previous cases, it was the government, not a polluting company, which bought out the towns.
And here is the kicker… there has been no documentation of the abnormal rates of long term health problems… there have been no lawsuits…and at this date the firm is not in violation of any laws.
We used to count on the mainstream defining where the fringe would reside. Now, it’s the fringe that dictates the mainstream. When you develop your next strategic plan… think asymmetrically.
 | Asymmetric Interactive Relationships |
| Familiar Faces |
| M.C. Escher |
| Metaphors Can Kill |
| Stephen Jay Gould |
Dan - 6/19/2002 11:22:07 AM DST (GMT-4)
I agree with your premise with the one slight exception. I think the edge has always dictated the mainstream. The edge may have had less influence on the velocity of change that today (internet, media, etc). Examples of this include Jesus, Buda, Newton, Capernacus, De Vince, Mozart, Shakespear. They were all fringe, weren't they?
Always enjoy your writings.
Thank you.
A Question of Calculated Imbalance
Go to the Enterprise discussion area.
 |
Management Inspiration | Issues | Archives | Lexicon | Forums | Mailing List | Log In | Search | ?? | ||
|
© 1997-2008 FirstMatter LLC