People often think that you must do more to secure success. For example, a Strategy Director of a $1B health and wellness brand recently told me that her company "burned everyone out" by simultaneously pursuing 48 strategic projects.
This is a common misconception: we believe that by taking on more tasks, we will accomplish more and improve our performance. But "Doing more" is usually a flawed strategy. Multi-year research by a UC Berkeley Professor, Morten Hansen, published in 2018, suggested that:
"Doing Less" actually explains 66% of great performance;
while "Doing more" only explains 6% of great performance.
(Apparently, Luck explains about 24% and Demographics the other 4%)
Let me share another case highlighting that "Doing Less" is superior to "Doing More," i.e., the race to the South Pole.
Photo from Unsplash.com
The Race to the South Pole
In October 1911, two sides were racing to be the first humans to reach the South Pole, the last primary place on Earth not yet discovered. One side is the team led by Royal British Navy Commander Robert Scott. The other side is the team led by Norwegian Roald Amundsen. Both set their sights on the South Pole and were driven to make history.
Resource advantages
On paper, it was an unfair race. Scott's team had superior resources to Amundsen's: a grander Ship (187 feet vs. 128 feet); a bigger budget (£40k vs. £20 k); and a larger crew (65 men vs. 19 men).
As a result, Scott's team could afford five forms of transportation: dogs, motor sleds, Siberian pinnies, skis, and man-hauling. If one fails, he has backups. On the other hand, Amundsen relied on only one form of transportation: dogs. If they fail, his quest ends.
Not an easy task
The resource advantages surely make a difference in such a perilous journey? To reach the South Pole, both teams need to make an 800-mile journey across the ice barrier, with a 10,000-foot climb up the treacherous mountains, while enduring -60°C (-76°F) chills, disorienting blizzards, and 100 mph shrieking winds. Once they reach the South Pole, they need to make their way back again. There would be no maps, no communication, and no rescue. Definitely a difficult and dangerous journey.
The race began as the antarctic winter passed. Scott and Amundsen readied their teams for the grueling journey. Each knew of the other's presence, hence the pressure. Amundsen noted in his diary just before setting off: "Not much visibility. Nasty breeze from South. -52°C. The dogs clearly affected by the cold. The men, stiff in their frozen clothes... prospect of milder weather doubtful."
The outcome
Scaling the mountain, Amundsen and his small team struggled across deep crevasses. They survived blizzards and slaughtered dogs for food. Yet, after 54 days, Amundsen and his fellow explorers became the first in history to stand on the South Pole. They planted the Norwegian flag and then journeyed back to their base. Finally, reaching it after trudging 1,600 miles.
Scott and his men, exhausted and malnourished, limped to the pole 34 days later, only to find the Norwegian flag whipping in the wind. The team slogged homeward, racing against the approaching winter. Starving, frostbitten, and exhausted, they pushed forward. Hope faded when a storm pinned them down in their tents. There, they perished, only 11 miles from the next depot of food and shelter.
Difference in Strategy
Why did one leader and his team achieve the extraordinary, while the other crew perished in the polar night? Didn't Scott's team have three times the man, twice the budget, and four more additional transport modes? How did Amundsen's team win even when they were under-resourced?
The answer is that "Doing Less" lets you focus on what matters!
Both Scott and Amundsen took dogs. But Amundsen concentrated only on dogs and eschewed backup options.
Before the race, Amundsen had apprenticed with Inuits who had mastered dog sledding. He learned from the natives how to urge dogs to run, drive sleds, and pace them.
Amundsen did research and found that Greenlander dogs were bigger, stronger, and handled polar travel better than Siberian Huskies. He then traveled to Copenhagen to enlist the help of a Danish Inspector of Greenland.
Amundsen was obsessed with obtaining superior dogs. He wrote: "As far as dogs are concerned, it is absolutely essential that I obtain the very best it is to obtain." And he was willing to pay for them: "Naturally, I am fully aware that as a result, the price must be higher than that normally paid."
Furthermore, Amundsen sought out expert dog drivers (many of them were more skilled than him) to join his team. When the best dog driver, Sverre Hassel, declined, Amundsen didn't look for the next best. He kept pursuing Hassel and exerted all his charm to coax Hassel. In the end, Hassel, worn down by his persistence, agreed.
Amundsen's strategy is simple: It is all about the best dogs and the best dog drivers.
On the other hand, Scott was so busy arranging for five different transportation methods that he couldn't focus on any of them.
For example, rather than venturing to Siberia to secure ponies, he sent his aide, who knew nothing about ponies. So Scott's team ended up with 20 ill-suited ponies, which slowed the team down in their journey to the pole.
During the journey, by using five different modes, Scott got tangled in a complex operation and struggled to coordinate his convoy. He noted in his diary: "a somewhat disorganized fleet." The motor sleds needed to start first (as they were the slowest). The ponies set out seven days later. The dog sleds (the fastest) left last. For the entire journey, each group had to coordinate its speed with the others. As a result, the convoy moved as fast as the slowest method.
While Scott's convoy was struggling, Amundsen's dogs were speeding across the icy landscape. Their average speed was 15 miles/day vs. Scott's 11 miles/day. So by the time Amundsen's team reached the pole, they were over 300 miles ahead of Scott's team.
In sum, Amundsen had chosen one method and mastered it. By doing less, he actually secured a victory.
The idea of focusing and doing less doesn't mean you are lazy. You still do the hard work. But instead of scattering the effort across many directions, you put them all into a single direction. This gives you the sharpness you need to win.
So, if you want to win, start focusing and adopt a simple strategy.
Continue to explore the secrets of Winning Strategy here.
Comments