The Burden of Legacy

I have often grumbled and cried foul about the world around me not being one in which merit is not the only driver of progress. There are other factors, (most irritatingly one called tenure) that get in the way. And mediocrity gets away with being mediocre. But then, on some mornings I try to imagine a world which was only inhabited with prodigies with IQs that make Mumbai skyscrapers bow down in shame. And the problems of that structure became very obviously apparent – at least it did to me.

 

Imagine a world of geniuses where everyone had a very high capacity of being able to crack problems and get the solutions right, every time. What that would do is (i) make everyone lazy, complacent and non-competitive since there would be very little to compete against with a clear path to victory, and (ii) it would make for a very high individual and collective ego, in turn leading back to add more to the lack of competitiveness and complacency. One and all become victims of the “what’s the best you can throw at me” attitude that makes for very little aggression, if any and hence leads to the absence of progress where progress should be the natural outcome. I call this the burden of legacy, for the lack of a better description.

 

By comparison, consider the world made of a triangular hierarchy of ability and intelligence, the way it is. Sure, it makes for a lot of cause for grumbles and agony, but what it also allows for is the ability to get a big picture painted and creates aspirational outlook within people therefore enabling competitiveness. And we all know that healthy competition leads to healthy creativity and ultimately progress of the group. Imagine a surgical team. From the nurse and aide to wash and make instruments available to the master of the art, the surgeon, everyone has (i) their calling according to their skills, (ii) the aspiration to learn and grow up the value chain and (iii) a distinct part to play, essential to completion of a complex surgery. In an operating room with 12 – 15 surgeons and one patient, there will no doubt be a lot of creative haggling, discussion and debate however; the chances of the patient’s survival at the end of the process will be greatly reduced.

 

Now let us take this scenario and magnify it proportionately to form a looking glass to look at a competitive market for a particular kind or a set of similar products or services. Imagine a Company-A that has been pioneer at many things and has been regarded with respect by shareholders, stockholders and (the most important!) the media. Company-A is able to skim the best talent, make the best work environments and offer the best value in the market. With this legacy we stride ahead not noticing with so much focus as Company-B comes out of nowhere and does the same things that Company-A holds the pioneering rights to. Only, they do it cheaper, better and faster. Company-A has become lazy, unwatchful and somewhat myopic suffering the burden of legacy. Except in Company-A, no one perceives the lethargy that has crept in as a sign of a burden of any sort as their leadership continues to be proud of the past and dependent on it to sell and be profitable.

Company-B, by comparison, is agile with a lesser baggage, creates an environment within that allows for agility and infuses the aspirational spirit where everyone is trying to excel. What it also does is attacks at everything from every direction, most often in the blind spots of Company-A. And very soon Company-A realizes that Company-B is everywhere where the former boasted of invincibility. It finds itself trying to play catch up, reacting violently against moves by Company-B (though lawsuits, negative publicity – sometimes blatant and sometimes subtle and other not so healthy means).

 

What should Company-A do? Well, many millions of papers can be written in hindsight that would talk about how they should have changed strategy, restructured leadership, focus on core competency, build relationships, etc. All of that and more basically mean that Company-A needs to (i) identify their burden of legacy and (ii) shed this burden. There are a million enablers but the objective of the journey should be to become proactive and not reactive.

 

What does a Company-A typically do? It will continue to bear its burden of legacy, fight back drastic change and bask in the comfort of ‘it’s worked for us so far’ or ‘our model is more robust’ or ‘we can withstand the storm and will come out on top of it’.

 

Sound familiar. Look around you and you will see history spotted with examples.

• · Apple, the legacy vs. Google, the agile.
• · Microsoft, the legacy vs. Google, the agile.
• · Ryze, the legacy vs. LinkedIn, the agile.
• · IBM, the legacy vs. Dell and HP, the agile.
• · TCS, Infosys and Wipro, the legacy vs. Cognizant, the agile.
• · GM and Ford, the legacy vs. Toyota and Nissan, the agile.
• · Americal Airlines, the legacy vs. Southwest, the agile.
• · McDonnell Douglas, the legacy vs. Boeing, the agile.

I do not have a conclusion to write here because it is a matter of perspective, really. What is it that each company must do to face and rise to the challenge is an outcome of multiple factors like state of the economy, state of the business, availability of resources, trends, competitive landscape and many other things. Shedding the legacy burden is no easy task but it must be done from time to time. What it needs is the ability to (i) continuously raise the bar, (ii) measure everything that can be measured and be critical and (iii) be open to the possibility, every day, that things can be different and better.

 

Is there a right answer? The answer is definitely an emphatic NO. Is there however, a right direction? The trick is to be able to think and strive towards the fact that there is always a comparatively righter direction.