There Are Only Two Kinds of Companies. Which One is Yours?
Adam Bryant
Senior Managing Director at The ExCo Group; Author, "The Leap To Leader" & "The CEO Test" (HBR); World50 Advising Member
A noteworthy skill of many leaders I interview for Corner Office is the ability to develop a deceptively simple framework that illuminates an idea in a fresh and memorable way.
In my conversation with Steve Case, the CEO of the investment firm Revolution, we talked about a theme that I explore in my new book, "Quick and Nimble: Lessons from Leading CEOs on How to Create a Culture of Innovation." Many of the hundreds of CEOs I've interviewed have talked about the desire to stay small, in terms of culture, even as they grow in size. Steve, who was also a founder of AOL, shared an insight that captures the differences among companies.
Here's the relevant passage from our interview:
I think that when people talk about staying small, they’re saying they want to be big but still be nimble and creative and innovative and flexible. They also want to still feel like attackers, not defenders. As companies get larger — and I saw this with AOL even before we merged, but certainly after the merger with Time Warner — we did shift from being an attacker to a defender.
And I realized the world of business really separates into these two groups. The attackers are the entrepreneurs who are disrupting the status quo, trying to change the world, take the hill, anything is possible, and have nothing to lose in most cases. They’re driven by passion and the idea and intensity. Large organizations — and it’s true of Fortune 500s and it’s also true of governments and other large organizations — are defenders. These guys aren’t trying to pursue the art of the possible, how to maximize opportunity. They actually are trying to minimize the downside, and hedge risk. They’re trying to de-risk situations. Entrepreneurs can’t even think this way. It’s not even a concept they understand.
For the traditional executives running these large companies, of course they want to grow, of course they want to innovate, of course they’d rather have revenue grow faster than slower, but they mostly don’t want to lose what they’ve got. But entrepreneurs are deathly afraid that they won’t be able to change the world, and that somebody else will. Again, these generalizations are a little unfair, but corporate executives are all too often deathly afraid that the business they inherit will be less valuable when they leave than when they started."
I'd love to get a discussion going around this. What do you think of Steve Case's attackers-and-defenders framework?
To see future posts, please hit my FOLLOW button here.
Photo: Lightspring / shutterstock
.
10yI think this is a fascinating concept, and almost entirely true, albeit simplistic. I see this concept much like the swinging of a pendulum. Clearly, there are variations in speed and intensity, but a company, an individual, a team, an idea… they are all moving in one direction or another. The three exceptions to the rule are the pinnacle of the left and right swings, and the brief moment of stability in the middle, as the entity moves firmly into the opposite direction or simply stops completely. One could equate the pinnacles as moments of relaxation or realization respectively, but they are pivotal in forecasting the upcoming change in direction. The third, stopping point in the middle, is clearly an area where no one in any competitive circumstance wants to be… finished. Interesting article! I appreciated it!
Quality & New Prod Develop. Director at Merec Industries
10yShort article, but does have some truth to it. I often say that big companies are like big, heavy, strong trains. My reference in this case is not on CEO's but the whole structure of these enterprises. To be large and to be innovate does require some level of flexibility and it is a challenge that we must welcome. Thank for the article, it allows for this sort of discussion.
Omnichannel Commerce Technology and Digital Transformation Executive - Sr Account Director at Avionos, a Hero Digital Company
10yI usually have a negative reaction to simple dichotomies like this one, but I have to concede that this makes sense if you think of "attacking" as a way of extending yourself. Lou Holtz explains that once Notre Dame was #1, the mistake he made was shifting his focus to maintaining that position, or defending it. The problem with being #1 in anything is that organizations develop a religious devotion to the methods and strategies that got them there. They remain committed to growth, and my set challenges like growing into new markets, developing new products, etc., but what they end up defending is a way of thinking about their business. Attacking and defending is not just external against competitors, but internal. I think Sam Kishaish restates this nicely by putting it in terms of risk. The key to being entrepreneurial is not simply agility, but the willingness to learn through failure.
Market Research and Planning Manager at TriWest Healthcare Alliance
10yAlthough I agree with Steve Case's description of the two types of leaders or organizations I personally feel both types can excel given the CEO's style. I've worked with and for both types, but Mr. Case is missing one important piece of the puzzle. Any organization can be an attacker or defender but it's the one in the drivers seat that makes the difference. If he or she fits well in the attackers side he or she will excel in that environment. It's when they have to become the defender that the company falters. Thus, placing the perfect leader with a like organization is a win, until he or she has to switch their approach due to unforeseen circumstances, then the company is sure to fail. The win win situation is when an executive team includes both types of leadership even though they may not see eye-to-eye when all is running smooth.