Most of the argument can be boiled down to 1 thing (yes I seem to like this 1 thing concept):

Sometimes when you’re in marketing you get cute. You want to put something out there that hooks people in something amazing. And you shoot yourself in the foot.

It’s not that I believe there is only 1 path to failure, it’s that believing there is only 1 path leads to failure (again just my opinion). This is a relativist angle, the one thing that always confuses me is if you believe relativism is an absolute aren’t you then an absolutist?

So what is relativism to me?

My belief is relativism should only be used in reference to sociology or the mixing of people. I don’t believe being a relativist in isolation makes any sense at all, that’s just not being accountable/having any belief system at all. Where relativism comes in for me is the belief that two different people can have their own absolutes and they can both be true. One person feels marketing is the most important thing, and the other good operational management, or one person believes Jesus is their savior and the other is an atheist. The idea is understanding and appreciating the uniqueness of visions even if they are not your own.

I agree many people have been over this topic; I just had my own angle and felt that not everyone reads these textbook studies.

To summarize one of the points, you feel one problem is that we want to be with similar groups? Why would that always be a negative thing? Take for example, the research department at Microsoft. They missed the boat on the internet, and then they missed the boat on the iPod revolution. Their answers in both cases have been pretty weak. While the Zune may or may not be a better product, it is clearly the “johnny come lately” product. One may say that Microsoft has become a victim of groupthink, but evidence would contradict that. They have been very aggressive about hiring away from the competition and building a diverse workforce (the famous Borland lunches come to mind). So if they are diverse, how could they become a victim of groupthink?

Most leadership scholars would agree that complimentary partners would be a good thing. I don’t believe you are covering any new ground there. It is also interesting that you label yourself a relativist. What exactly does that mean to you? Does that mean that you feel truth is relative? There are countless arguments against that position (Pascal’s famous one comes to mind). Two people can have different opinions, but there is only one truth. I’m not talking about preferences. You may prefer the Zune, while most of the rest of the world has an iPod, but there is still an underlying truth that either device can meet the needs of the music playing population. Perhaps you have chosen the label of relativist to describe something else?

Challenging yourself, setting a vision and mission…blah..blah.. blah… we have heard all of this before. Let’s address the gorilla in the room. Complacency and the lack of focus.

What is the number one thing that is tripping people up… complacency. Organizations are so busy trying to survive, and leaders are too wrapped up in their own lives to recognize this problem. The Bush administration spent so long keeping the focus on Iraq that the rest of the country became complacent in their financial deals. Yes I recognize that the financial crisis started in the Clinton years; however, there was a sharp increase during Bush’s term. Now we have the savior of Obama, and I honestly feel sorry for the guy. There is no way he can reverse this trend in one term. What about our friends with the Zune and iPod? Microsoft was complacent when they let the iPod get past them. By the time they saw the repercussions, it was too late and the product was already a success. The same could be said with their search capabilities, and several other fiascos that we could discuss.

John Kotter, a noted expert on change theory, said that we need to create a sense of urgency. That is the remedy for organizational complacency. Instead of trying to be the next Google, or create the iPod killer, Microsoft should concentrate on improving their core business. For example, they have groundbreaking technology in the gaming industry and their table top control device. They should develop a sense of urgency around these products. Consumers WANT this stuff. When they throw out the garbage that is Bing, they are taking the focus away from these areas. It will lead to organizational complacency.

How can the individual leader respond? By creating a sense of individual urgency. There are good people working at Microsoft, and they have some good ideas. They need to make senior leadership aware of these ideas. If they get rejected, then consider taking those ideas to another company that will use them… or start your own company. Some of the best things have come from individuals who refuse to simply toe the company line.

If you want to become successful and make a difference:
- Create a sense of urgency
- Keep focused on the good ideas
- Don’t let the corporate organizational structure prevent you from realizing your goals

BTW – Apple sucks too, for different reasons. I’m a Lenovo fanboy.