Hidden Brain - When To Pivot

Episode Date: March 10, 2025

When should you stay the course in life, and when should you shift with changing tides? This week, we bring you case studies from the world of business to explore the science of inflection points — changes that dramatically transform the course of events. Researcher Rita McGrath of Columbia University explains why we fail to see impending moments of upheaval, and what we can do to be more adept at spotting them.What you'll learn from this week's episode:The definition of an inflection point, and how to identify it in your own professional or personal life.The four stages of inflection points, and how to take advantage of them.The warning signs that an inflection point might be passing you by.  If you find today's episode to be interesting or insightful, please share it with one or two people in your life! Your recommendation is one of the best ways to help us connect new listeners to the ideas we explore on the show. And for more of our work, be sure to sign up for our newsletter. Every week, we'll bring you the latest research about human behavior, along with a brain teaser and a moment of joy. 

This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. In the mid-1980s, Coca-Cola was feeling threatened by the growing popularity of its rival, Pepsi. Executives at Coca-Cola decided to shake things up. In April 1985, they launched a new product. The supermarket shelves throughout America will have the new Coke by Memorial Day weekend, summer's kickoff, and the soft drink season. New Coke promised to be sweeter and smoother. Rounder, yet bolder, is a more harmonious flavor.

You're a pretty good copywriter, Roberto. Sounds great, right? But not everyone was happy. Consumers took to the streets to protest New Coke, pouring out the beverage in defiance. The Coca-Cola company received over 40,000 calls and letters from angry, dissatisfied customers. Here's one that starts, dear Chief Dodo, what ignoramus decided to change the formula

of coke? The new formula is unexciting and it's as bad as Pepsi. Burn it. People didn't just take the change seriously. They took it personally. is unexciting and it's as bad as Pepsi. Burn it." People didn't just take the change seriously. They took it personally. That's un-American because we fought wars to have a choice to have freedom. New Coke was a disaster.

Customers boycotted it, the media mocked and criticized the move, and distributors were reluctant to sell it. Sales plateaued and a rapid decline loomed on the horizon. The company threw in the towel and switched back to its original formula. Peace and taste buds were restored. There's a saying that's often attributed to Berturt Lantz, a political appointee of former US President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The origins of this expression go back even further. Farmers believed that when something worked, it was best to leave well enough alone. Tinker with things, and you risk disaster. Today we look at the truth of this old adage. When it makes sense to stay the course and when it makes sense to change direction. This week on Hidden Brain. Imagine you're paddling a boat across a calm lake. The wind is steady, you're moving forward slowly but surely. There's no need to change course, adjust your stroke, or head back to shore. But what if a storm rolls in, or your boat springs a leak, or you feel a sudden stabbing

pain in your chest? Now, staying the course and sticking to your plan could be disastrous. At Columbia University, Rita McGrath studies when it makes sense to pivot and when it's wiser to stick with what's worked. Rita McGrath, welcome to Hidden Brain. It's a pleasure to be here. Rita, you tell the story of the Gillette Company, a popular personal care brand that most people are familiar with. Give me a brief history of the origins of the company.

Sure. So Gillette is one of the most successful consumer product companies in the world. They were founded in 1901, and they were one of the original safety razor manufacturers. So King C. Gillette, the actual man, founded this company. And before that, if you wanted to get a close shave, you pretty much had to go to a barbershop. So it was a huge breakthrough in mass market consumer products. And they were basically able to pull off the strategy unthinkable. They maintained a competitive advantage for literally decades. They were the dominant player. So in 2010, two entrepreneurs, Mark Levine and Michael Dubin,

met at a holiday party. Mark was a product wholesaler who had a problem in one of his warehouses. And Michael was a marketer. What was the problem in the warehouse, Rita?? Well Mark has this interesting career where he buys stuff from one part of the world and sells it for a profit in another and as you mentioned he was trying to unload this set of decent quality, not exceptional, but decent quality razors that were made by a South Korean manufacturer. So I understand at this point Mark has something like 250,000 twin razors that were made by a South Korean manufacturer. So I understand at this point, Mark has something like 250,000 twin razors in this warehouse,

and he approaches Michael, who's an online video marketer, about potentially going into business together. What was the proposal? Well, Mike Dubin at the time was kind of a failed entrepreneur. He found his way into marketing. He was doing a lot of video work. He tried to turn his life around. He applied to the Columbia Business School.

I'm sad to say we rejected him, which is not so happy. But the two guys get to talking over what I presume is some adult beverages. And what they start thinking about is if you were going to try to sell razors in this day and age, in 2010, you know, we've had e-commerce for a while by then, we've had home delivery of just about everything, why would you do it the way Gillette did it? Gillette's business model was basically you invest in high-end R&D that allows you to charge higher prices for the great products that ensue, and then you use your armies of marketing people to get these things in just the right places in the retail store.

And in 1990, when they first introduced the sensor, this was revolutionary. The technology was patented, nobody else could do it. By 2010, when this conversation happens, the world has changed completely. Mark, who had the warehouse of 250,000 South Korean razors, and Michael, the video marketer, asked themselves if they could sell razors over the internet. This could save customers a trip to the store to buy Gillette's higher-priced razors. But the duo also had a brainwave about how to lock in customers long-term. They called it Dollar Shave Club.

Other companies had shown that direct-to-consumer could work, which is a company shipping stuff directly to your door and developing a personal relationship with you. Don't forget, Gillette's main relationships would be like with Walmart, right? They don't actually get all the way to the end customer. And so it gives those DTC, as we call them, companies a big advantage. And he had quite a bit of experience with wholesaling, with retailing, and Dubin knew the power of the internet. So it was that kind of

magical moment where the possibilities have really changed. And now you could see a niche in the market where you could actually create something that was entirely new. So the idea was you sell a subscription to people and razors basically show up at your doorstep on a regular basis so you don't have to go to the store you don't have to buy it there's a predictability about it I understand they went to a number of bloggers to try and spread word about it and they started to get people to sign up what was Gillette's initial response to this upstart Rita? They ignored them. Gillette's position now you know you know, as you said in the introduction, if you've had a smooth ship for a long time,

I mean, if you were an executive at Gillette at that time, what are you thinking about? You're thinking about two blades versus three blades, three blades versus four. You're thinking about how much ad placement do I place in television, right? Because we hadn't yet realized television is kind of on the way out in terms of reaching lots of people, especially young people. So your whole mental capacity is taken up with those kinds of questions. You're not looking for what's the hot new thing that might introduce a completely different variable into your sales process. So it turns out that Dollar Shave Club didn't just come up with a new business model.

They also came up with a more conversational, casual style of marketing. Here's a clip from one ad. Hi, I'm Mike, founder of DollarShaveClub.com. What is DollarShaveClub.com? Well, for a dollar a month, we send high quality razors right to your door. A dollar! Are the blades any good? No, our blades are f***ing great.

What was the audience reaction to this, Rita? Oh, they loved it. This thing went completely viral on YouTube. And as you probably could hear, Mike's a very personable guy. He's very approachable. And when you think about most of corporate America television ads,

they've been run through the PR department in legal and compliance. And they're not really speaking directly to you, the customer, whereas Mike was a master of that and did so for a long time. So this was really his first introduction to the main stage of speaking directly to his target audience, which were younger men, right? And Mike also realized that a lot of these young guys were very frustrated at the experience which were younger men, right? And Mike also realized that a lot of these young guys were very frustrated at the experience Gillette was offering, right? You had to go to a store. Razors are expensive and they're small, so they're catnip for shoplifters. And so

what do the stores do? They lock them up in razor fortresses. So you're standing around on a Saturday morning waiting for the friendly, helpful retail employee who's got the keys to come help you unleash this thing. I mean, it's just a really horrible experience as opposed to the convenience of having them to show up on your doorstep. I want to play you an ad that Gillette published around this time. This one featured the tennis champion Roger Federer shaving his face in the mirror. You get in the zone long before the match. Get your head right and focus. On match day, you don't leave anything to chance.

I get the sense from that ad that Gillette took itself more seriously than Dollar Shave Club, Rita. Oh, absolutely, and so did many other incumbent firms at the time. As I said, you got legal, you got compliance, everybody's saying if the ad is okay, people are worried about brand image. The fact that Mike's video was literally filmed in his warehouse with him wandering around like and it throws in lots of humorous elements like a big stuffed teddy bear and he says,

hey, you don't need to pay Roger Federer's salary if you buy from us. I mean, he was really poking Gillette in the nose on that. And yes, I think a lot of the big consumer product brands at the time, you know, with celebrity endorsements, a big deal. I don't know how much they paid Federer, but I'm sure it was a lot. So in 2019, Dollar Shave Club put out another ad. This one featured a handful of middle-aged men who didn't look at all like Roger Federer. The men were dancing in towels

while they shaved their faces. The video campaign was titled, Dad Bard, and the slogan was, whatever your bard, welcome to the club. That same year, Gillette released its own ad campaign. It was inspired by the Me Too movement and included imagery of men treating women in inappropriate ways

We believe in the best in men. Men need to hold other men accountable. Smile sweetie. Come on. Because the boys watching today Will be the men of tomorrow What was the response to this ad, Rita? Oh, the response was really negative. People felt it was finger-pointing. People felt it was kind of accusatory. Instead of their historical positioning, which was the best a man can get, this is like the

worst a man can be, right? So I understand that Gillette eventually pivoted to try and get into the subscription business as well and sell Razor as a service. They started a Gillette club. How did that go? Better. Better. They picked up many of the segments that found shopping in the stores to be irritating. There are some men who felt the quality of the shave was better using the traditional Gillette blades. And so they were able to kind of mount a rear guard there, but that's a defensive action. That's not really winning and taking the offensive. It really just stops the bleeding.

So we talked about how Gillette missed two potential inflection points, the subscription model but also this changing tide in the kind of marketing that customers were responding to. What was the long-term effect on Gillette's market dominance, Rita? When Procter & Gamble bought Gillette in 2005, they spent 57 billion dollars for it. Dollar Shaped Club got its going with like Dubin's life savings of 35 grand. I mean, in the past it would be inconceivable that a tiny little upstart literally running out of his apartment, sticking on labels on packages by hand, could be even a modest threat to Mighty Gillette. So if you think about sort of

intellectual deniability, why would you believe that could be true? But what had happened in the interval was some big changes in tech. So Dollar Shave Club could start up without servers, and they didn't have to hire programmers to build custom websites, and they didn't have to manufacture. Manufacturing razors is really hard, and they already had a supply because of Mark's efforts. So I think it was very difficult for the Gillette executives to realize this was real. But it's also the case that you know the market dominance they had for much of the century, much of the 20th century, that has sort of

disappeared. I mean they no longer are in quite as dominant a position as they were through much of the 20th century. And you know don't get me wrong, 50% share in a high margin business like that is nothing to sneeze at. That's a really good business. It's just not as good as it was, right? And I have a lot of credit for the people at Procter & Gamble and Gillette. They really know their game, but the game changed.

You use the term inflection point to describe situations like what happened with Gillette and Dollar Shave Club. What is an inflection point Rita? Well I define an inflection point as something that changes what is true about the rules around your business typically by a factor of 10 or more. So 10 times faster, 10 times cheaper in the case of Dollar Shave Club, 10 times more convenient or even more than that. And it can take incumbents by surprise, as we saw with Gillette. People forget that, right? So these things seep into this whole world of reality.

And then something comes along like internet, digital advertising, e-commerce, changes all those rules, and your system is still operating on the old ones. When we come back, why businesses and people fail to see inflection points and what we can learn from their mistakes. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedant. The personal care and safety razor company Gillette had been the leader in its industry for nearly a century. When competitors came along, Gillette said, don't fix what isn't broken. The strategy worked until it didn't.

When does it make sense to stay the course? And when does it make sense to roll with changing tides? At Columbia Business School, Rita McGrath studies this question. She studies the science of inflection points, a change that dramatically shifts the course of events. Rita, I want to talk about some of the reasons why organizations miss inflection points. In 1995, a man named Cliff Stoll published an article in Newsweek. It was titled, Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana. What did the article say?

Well, okay, back in 1995, the internet was very new. Computers at the time operated on things called the floppy disks. And things were very primitive. Most of us got our access to the internet, if we were on at all, which most people weren't. By dial-up, you remember? Eh, ah, ah, you know, the modem dial-up. And the visionaries among us were saying, oh, you know, the web is gonna completely replace

newspapers and novels and magazines. And Stoll was looking at the reality of 1995 and he was saying, let me get this straight. You're gonna drag a computer to the beach to read your racy romance novel? I don't think so. Yeah, so at one point in this article he says, the truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher, and no computer network will change the way government works. And of course, looking back now, that prediction, you know, can seem hilarious, but from what you're

saying, there's a certain truth to it. At the time, it really didn't seem plausible that these things would dramatically upend our lives, but one of the things that I think Cliff Stoll missed was how much technology was going to change in the coming years. It wasn't an instantaneous change, but it unfolded over five, ten, fifteen, twenty years. Well, and the idea behind a lot of this is it's a bit like the line from the old Hemingway novel, you know, the sun also rises or one character asks another, well, how did you go bankrupt?

And the answer was, well, two ways, gradually and then suddenly. And in the gradual part of that curve, everything looks the same. Nothing looks as though it's changing. And it's very hard for human beings to think about these exponential changes that can come out and really shift what's possible in the world.

I mean the interesting thing of course is that when we look back, I mean it feels like the whole online revolution was the work of an instant, right? It feels like looking back now in hindsight, it feels like it all happened very quickly, but it actually took a long time. It took about two decades really for widespread broadband service to be widely available for us to carry around these little But it actually took a long time. It took about two decades really for widespread broadband service to be widely available for us to carry around these little computers in our hands and in our pockets where we could access the internet, where we could press a button and it had our credit card information stored. All of these things took time, but looking back it can seem like they were

the work of an instant. Yeah they do, they do. And I think what's interesting is you kind of go from this will never happen to, hey, what's happening to, well, of course that happened. Yeah. You know, human beings. We're kind of like that when we think about change. I also think that there is a human tendency, if something's going to be very destabilizing to your business or your life, there's kind of a human very destabilizing to your business or your life, there's kind of a human tendency not to want to see it. We talked earlier about how Gillette, the razor company, failed to see the inflection

point of a subscription model that Dollar Shave Club offered. There's another company that you talk about, Kodak. Most of us are familiar with the brand, but not as familiar with the story of a man named Antonio Perez, who joined the company in 2003. He had previously been at Hewlett-Packard? Yeah. So, Antonio Perez grew Hewlett-Packard's printer business from kind of nothing to, I think, a seven billion something business.

And he lost out in his bid to become CEO at HP, and Carly Fiorino was named instead. Now she's got a problem and he's got a problem. She's got to figure out what to do with him because he was very clearly a qualified heir apparent at that company, and there were kind of two warring camps there. So she kind of let him carve out his own space around printing, so they forged a joint venture with Kodak, which went on for a few years. Perez wanted to buy Kodak. I don't think he got the board to buy into that.

And eventually when the CEO rolled up and opened up a Kodak, he took that role. And what he did in that role was he made the, what turned out to be pretty fatal decision to aim the whole company at printing just at that period when screens were getting so good that we didn't need to print them. And I don't know this, but my belief and others observing the situation would agree that it was kind of ego-fueled.

He was going to show the HP board and all the others how wrong they were to not have given him that role and was using Kodak as his vehicle to do that. So what's striking about the Antonio Perez story Rita is that he had been wildly successful betting on printers while he was at HP and in fact as you just pointed out it had produced billions of dollars in revenue the very same play, five years later, ten years later at a different company, completely different outcome. Indeed. And we see that a lot, you know, that there is a time and a place for a particular

strategy to be successful. And when the conditions change, you can't just rinse repeat. Another reason organizations can miss out on inflection points is timing. We can see how trying to jump on a bandwagon late, like, you know, like Gillette offering a subscription service after the inflection point had passed. But you say that companies can also jump on an inflection point too early. I understand this was the case with the video rental company Blockbuster? Yes. So Blockbuster is another one of those fascinating stories because I think we get it wrong. Blockbuster always gets told as, oh, dumb old company, never saw the power of streaming. And that's not actually true. There was a very well-known retail turnaround guy called John Antiochus who was put in the CEO role there.

The company was in trouble. There was a lot of competition. Their margins were getting squeezed. They had two things that drove customers absolutely crazy. One was the late fees. The other was that if you had a movie that came out that was really super popular, Blockbuster would only buy four or five to keep in the store at the time.

So the hot new movies you often had to wait for and those were things that were irritating. So Antioch took a look at this and he said, well, what I think we need to do, I think we need to get rid of late fees. I think streaming is a thing. And he actually partnered with Enron, yes, that Enron, to build out a digital infrastructure that would make it possible to do that. But again, we're talking kind of before high speed broadband. This was several years before even Netflix adopted streaming in a widespread way. So that was a little early technologically. But what happened in

the back half of this was Antiochus moves were going to cost about 200 million apiece. So the streaming part and the ending late fees, which was a big part of their profit margin. And the parent company at the time was a company called Viacom, which just didn't have the appetite for that. So Viacom ended up floating an initial public offering with Blockbuster, who went to market kind of weakened. The turnaround had not yet taken place.

And so a lot of investors were very skeptical. Icon, who's a very famous activist investor, sees the opportunity, swoops in, buys the company, looks at Antiochus plans to do things and doesn't have any better feeling about it than the previous owner did. And so he cancels both of those things. The reality is, if you think about something that represents, I'll call it a time zero event. So the thing is here, you can take pictures of it, it's in the front page of the Wall Street Journal, we all know it's here. By the time you wait till then, it's definitely too late, because now you're in reactive mode, and if there were any excess profits to be made,

the early movers would have gotten them. But you also don't want to move too early. And that's where I think a lot of these big, buzzy technologies that manage to attract a lot of venture capital money get themselves in trouble because there's a lot of ecosystem considerations that need to be taken into account. There's a lot of, can I get the talent that I need? Can I get the real estate that I need? Can I figure out how this is gonna work? So if you think about autonomous technology, autonomous vehicle technology, I don't know about you, but we were gonna have autonomous technology in 2016. Remember that?

And it's still kind of a promise to be gotten because I think the technology is hard enough, but when you're talking about something that's going to affect the everyday lives of potentially hundreds of millions of people, there is risk you have to sort out, there's ownership regimes, what roads are safe for these things to go on. And so there's a whole social dimension that needs to happen, in addition to just getting the tech right, and that's hard enough.

You've described the life cycle of inflection points, and you say there are often four stages to them. Can you walk me through these four stages, Rita? So in the beginning, people see the potential, right? So autonomous cars, right? They're like, oh my God, you know, wouldn't this be awesome? Older people won't have to lose their independence, and, you know, we'll be able to have these regulated things in cities and it'll reduce pollution and it's going to be amazing. So there's a hype cycle. Then what happens is the hype doesn't deliver to its expectations, at least in the short run. So the first year or two, and then we have,

you know, the AI winter sets in and everybody's disillusioned and, oh, you know, we thought it was going to do everything from making Cocoa still launching to the moon and then everybody gets disillusioned but what happens is the survivors of that period have actually worked some cool stuff at now. So if you think about Dollar Shave Club, if you think about what came before, the early internet, remember the late 90s and the dot com crash and everybody said oh this internet thing is never going to be a thing, you. We should all just forget it, forget it. But out of that came Amazon, eBay, some of the early really successful internet commerce

programs which showed us that this could be useful in our lives. And so the next cycle is this trough of disillusionment, but the waiting out of the stuff that isn't going to work until you find the stuff that works. And then in the third stage, you have people saying, whoa, oh, now I get it. I could use that thing to do X, Y, Z. So what you see is this flowering of opportunities and this flowering of new applications. And that's the really exciting period, right? That's the period where you're now actually seeing real growth businesses build around

that stuff. And I'd say Dollar Shave Club would be a great example of that. And then you have the kind of, oh yeah, this is just normal. This is like everyone, what do you mean there was a time before high speed broadband? Right. Given that you can be too early to an inflection point, but also too late to it, timing clearly matters. You say there are warning signs that an inflection point is passing you by. What are some of these signs, Rita?

Well, the way I like to look at it is if you imagine this, as I said, a time zero with it, and then you work backward, you just say what would have to be true before this could actually happen? And what I like to do with companies is we'll make actually like a chart. I call it an early warnings signal model. And then we watch it. And then we say, wait a minute, if this happens and that happens and this other thing happens and whoa, there's this other thing happening, maybe now's the time we need to really evaluate this for taking action now. So let me give an example. In 2020, 21, I was working with a pharmaceutical company

and one of the big questions they had was, well, is the tech, is online or some kind of tech involvement going to be the first patient port of call for access to healthcare? So if there's no doctors in offices, that's kind of a problem if you're a sales rep. So we looked at that and we said, well, what would have to be true for this to actually happen?

And there's a bunch of things that would have to be true. Medicare and Medicaid would have to figure out payment models for services that were not done in a facility, for services that were done either at home or mediated technologically. You probably would have to have legislative action which says, hey, you know, drugs delivered electronically or as legitimate as drugs delivered any what way. So we went back probably two and a half years later and we looked at those early warnings that we had developed back in the day and what you saw was yes, yes, yes, and yes. In fact, a bunch of the things that we'd anticipated were now starting to happen. When it came time to saying, hey, do we

need to hire a data scientist? The answer was yes. When it came time to say, let's figure out what marketing looks like in a doctor-free environment. And there were a whole bunch of other things as well. For example, a lot of private physician practices were being sold to large players. You saw the disproportionate influence of the paying, the insurance companies, and, and, and, and, and, and so it caused them to take a real strategic shift. You know, I worked in the newspaper business for many years, Rita, before moving to radio and to audio.

But I remember there was a point in my newspaper career where I was actually not reading the newspaper on the page, but I was reading it online. And at the time, I think the companies that I worked with were still sort of, you know, they were ambivalent about digital journalism and the idea that people would really read things in a widespread way online. But one of the things that you point out

is that when you yourself or the employees at your company are not using your product. It's a warning sign It's basically a canary in the coal mine It is and a very good one, you know that that it doesn't cost you anything to see what people are actually doing So I'll never forget. I was some years back probably in the late Right around 2000. I was doing some work with Nokia in a program called Choices, which was for the people that were in their new product development company. And at the time,

I was working for a lot of telecom companies. It was a very hot area. And so as I traveled around the world, I would always go to phone stores. So in the airport or on the street, and you'd watch like what was going on in the physical phone store, because it would tell you a lot about market share and who was hot and who was not, and what were the salespeople pushing and all that kind of thing. And what I started to see was the section of the store devoted to Nokia products was getting smaller and smaller and smaller. And so I was with this class and I said to people, well, tell me what you learn when you go visit a phone store.

And the room went completely silent. And I said, well, nobody has any ideas. And they looked at me and they said, we don't visit phone stores. I said, excuse me. They said, no, you know, R&D sends us the new phones with the new features to test out and we give them our feedback and we don't ever go to a phone store. And it was like, what? And you know, that's well intentioned, but it's an example of the blind spots you can create when you create these special channels for your people that don't kind of put them in the position of the customer. Yeah and of course if you're actually you know you're working at a company

that makes some kind of product and you have your employees at that company who are buying products from a rival, in some ways it tells you that the people who are presumably your most loyal, who should be your most loyal customers are in fact not your loyal customers and that should raise red flags about customers in general. Well, what it tells you is there's, I'll use the language of Clay Christensen and Tony Ulwick here, there's a job to be done

that whatever you're offering isn't doing. And the job to be done theory basically says, don't think about customers buying your product or service, think about them hiring your product or service to get a job done in their lives. And if there's a missing job, it's not that your employees don't admire and appreciate whatever you do,

but whatever you're doing isn't covering something they need to get done. And so they're gonna use an alternative. And that's valuable information. Sometimes, sticking with what you've always done makes perfect sense. But what worked yesterday isn't always guaranteed to work tomorrow. When we come back, how to successfully spot inflection points. You're listening to Hidden Brain.

I'm Shankar Vedanta. This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. There are times in all our lives when doing the same old thing no longer works. The strategies that once helped you excel have now led to a plateau. The things that helped you stand out at work have become yesterday's news. Rita McGrath is the author of Seeing Around Corners, How to Spot Inflection Points in Business Before They Happen. She says there is a science to spotting inflection points. Rita, in the late 1990s, a man named Ivan Seidenberg was leading Bell Atlantic Telephone Company.

At this time, landlines were the norm and there was no indication that they were going anywhere. It was a hugely profitable company. But Ivan Seidenberg had a vision. What did he see? Well, I think to really understand Seidenberg's story, you actually have to start a little bit earlier with the breakup of AT&T. And this was Ma Bell. I mean, talk about the ultimate monopoly.

There was a show in the 70s called Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In where there was a character that pretended to be an operator for the phone company. Mr. Buckley, there's no reason on earth for you to feel personally persecuted. We may be the only phone company in town, but we sock it to everybody. Mr. Buckley, there's no reason on earth for you to feel personally persecuted. We may be the only phone company in town, but we sock it to everybody. So you have to kind of go all the way back to that. So a lot of telecom inherited this monopoly, guaranteed revenue, very profitable business, which you didn't have to work very hard. I mean, you had to deliver on your service. The regulators would ding you if you didn't provide reliable, which you didn't have to work very hard. I mean, you had to deliver on your service.

The regulators would ding you if you didn't provide reliable service and you didn't offer service to rural areas, but in exchange for doing that, you kind of had the market to yourself. So what Seidenberg did, and he had an interesting story. He was the ultimate insider, wasn't a super educated man, worked his way up through the ranks, and kind of thought about what comes after copper wires and what could happen in the future. And I think probably the major incitement was to say, hey, a lot of these baby bells, as they called them, really had no idea how to compete like a regular commercial company,

and he didn't want to end up like that. And so one of the things he did was he organized a merger of Bell Atlantic with GTE, which at the time was this kind of cool technology provider at the time, and he thought that that company could teach what was called Bell Atlantic about the new technologies, the new things, and he was kind of blown away by that. So they renamed the company Verizon and prompted to get out actually of these pretty profitable legacy businesses and start exploring some of these new technologies. So he did really controversial things like sell

off physical phone books. Can you imagine that? Tell me a little bit about what he did when it came to selling off some of Verizon's landline assets because he wasn't so much you know depriving customers of landline access but he was saying as a company that might be less of our future than it is today. You know he found ways of servicing them for less money. He eventually converted a lot of the big pipes, not the copper pipes right to the home, but the big pipes to FIOS. The fiber optic cable.

Yeah, you could still have a copper line in your house, but it would be connected to fiber optic network. Then the fiber optic network would allow you to have broadband. It would allow you to compete with the cable companies, which he saw as a huge opportunity. And it was, if you remember back in the day, and again, I feel like I'm retelling ancient history, but it's not that long ago. Before we had cable TV, we had network TV and cable TV was seen as this huge advance

because in the early, early days of cable, you didn't even, you didn't have ads, right? You could have ad free television on demand, 500 channels, you know, it was, and, and those cable companies, again, they were protected as local monopolies in the early stages. They were considered to be natural monopolies and governments to provide them with the capital to build out these networks basically said okay Comcast you have New Jersey Spectrum you've got New York and you could guarantee that the customers that were interested in that product could buy the service there. So Verizon said hey wait a minute I don't have to be a cable company but I could compete using

fiber optic lines so he decided that revenue looked pretty good. You say that Ivan Seidenberg did two things right. One, he was continuously adapting and two, he was able to disengage. What do you mean by this, Rita? So disengagement is the process of recognizing when something is just not going to be carrying your future forward. So you know, mailing DVDs in the mail was, you know, most of Netflix's customers I doubt even have a DVD player anymore. So that was clearly going to be a business which was ending. So I think there's a way of disengaging which is respectful, you know,

which said, hey, you know, the people that built this business have a lot to be commended, but it's not going to be a business for the future and so we have to figure out how to get resources and people and assets out of them, hopefully in a way that's not too painful, so that we can repurpose those things to what the future is going to hold. I'm struck by the fact that very often when we think about innovation we're often not thinking about this aspect of innovation, which is we're always thinking about what we can build that's new.

But of course, in order to build something that's new, we might have to give up something that we've been building for a long time. We might have to give up the old, but of course the two things actually work in a symbiotic fashion. They do have to work together. And I don't know about your workplace,

but I think about my place. I mean, I work for a 250-year-old-plus university. It's had a lot of time to collect cobwebs and stuff that's in the corners and what's in those closets. Nobody's looked for 35 years. And so if you imagine a world where maybe every quarter you just announce a day or two of simplification, we're just going to stop doing stupid stuff that everybody knows doesn't really contribute to value, but that we're doing anyway.

And that's kind of a really mini version of disengagement, but I think it's valuable and it's not expensive and it's something you could do wherever you are in your organization. Besides the challenge of just noticing things that have been around for a long time and that have just simply faded away from our attention, there's also the fact that we get attached to things that we have built. We have emotional connections to the things we've built. These are our babies, these are our children. We're not willing to cast them aside.

But of course, if you don't cast some of the things that you do as a company or an organization or as a person aside, if you can't cast them aside, it's very hard to move forward. It is, it is. So can I tell you one of my favorite stories about this? This is a story of the postal service, which is an unlikely place to look for really interesting management innovations, but so be it. So I had a gentleman in my class who worked for the postal service, and the branch that he was manager of had this giant analog machine. It was like sort and stack and people knew how to use it.

And it sort of occupied the middle of the facility. And everybody that was in the place worked with this machine. And they decided that they needed to become more digital. And this big machine was going to get replaced by a bunch of smaller units that could do more specific things and it was going to cost less and it would be less vulnerable to breakdowns and everything. So the machine was supposed to be less and it would be less vulnerable to breakdowns and everything. So the machine was supposed to be decommissioned over the course of a weekend. So you can imagine his surprise when Thursday night a group of his people come to him and

he said, boss, yeah, well we want to talk to you about the machine. And he's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, we spent months on this. We've talked, we've all agreed. You've all said it was good. And the people said to him, oh yeah, yeah, we get it. We're totally, we're ready to move on. It's just, you know, that machine has been a big part of our lives for a long period of time. A lot of us started working here when we were 18, you know, and that machine has been there every day. It's

just, you know, and it's going to be a big change for us. And they said, well, we want to say goodbye. And he's like, you want to say goodbye to a machine? They said, yeah. So they decided they wanted to have an Irish wake. Wow. The next night, the next night. It was amazing. There were people giving speeches that

were keeping people like screwing off little pieces of the machine to take home as keepsakes. But I've always thought that was a really lovely story because it represents both sides. You know, it represents the sadness of having to give up something that you've, that's been part of who you are for a long time and the need to do that and move on. Another example of a company that found an innovative way to ride an inflection point was Procter & Gamble.

They had come up with a water purification chemical, but it was not taking off. Tell me that story, Rita. Yeah, so the thing was called Pure, if I remember properly. And the original concept for it was that there would be this huge market of providing safe drinking water in places which didn't have reliable access to it. But you know, it's really hard, I think, if you've always lived your life in a developed country where you open the tap and safe drinking water comes out, to really understand the day-to-day circumstances of people who don't have that luxury. And what they came to realize was that if they tried to do this thing as a commercial

enterprise that it was going to be very difficult for the people living in those areas to access it because safe water was just one of their problems, right? They were, you know, there's sanitation concerns, there's other health concerns, and they've got so little resources to take what little they had and spend it on safe water, you know, maybe you'll just take the risk. So it wasn't, they banged away at it for a while, but it just became clear that unless the government took an interest or an NGO took an interest to that, it just wasn't going to be a commercial enterprise.

But then I believe it was a series of natural disasters that they were able to basically go in as a charity and say, hey, look, we will donate this, you know, to keep people from getting terrible illnesses and whatnot. And that then did attract the attention of the NGO community, of the governmental community. And it became, I wouldn't say, a wildly profitable business for them, but at least a viable business for them. I understand that it also had significant, you know, public relations benefits, because now they were in the business not public relations benefits, because now they were in the business not just of making money,

but they were also in the business of saving lives in poor countries, and that had sort of brand benefits, if you will, that also indirectly helped the bottom line. Yes, well, and you know, if you're helping a government look after their people, they're gonna be much more willing to have a conversation with you about what other products you might introduce in their country. You say that Procter & Gamble took advantage of an inflection point because

they fell in love with the problem rather than the solution. What do you mean by this, Rita? Well, I think when we innovate, right, we have a tendency to make up in our heads what the right solution is, right? So, if I've got a problem with elderly people not able to drive, then autonomous cars is the solution. But instead, what I find with successful entrepreneurs and innovators, they tend to carve out a problem space for themselves that could be open to multiple solutions.

And I think we often forget that. There's lots of ways of making something happen that don't necessarily involve a whiz-bang technology or whatever. And in fact, in many cases, you're better off not having that. I'm wondering how much of the science of inflection points that you have studied at an organizational level, Rita, how much of this applies to individuals and their own lives? Are any of these lessons applicable to us as we navigate our personal lives?

Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I think, you know, so much of the human journey, we don't like to think about this, but a lot of it is serendipity and chance and did the right person speak up for you at the right time and did you happen to live in the right zip code you know a lot of what we end up doing in life has that flavor to it and so I think the inflection points really come when you know big moments like you go off to school and there's a whole new group of people that you meet or your family moves and there's another social setting that you're in or you lose a job and it turns out maybe that wasn't such a bad thing or or you get a job and who expected that and you proved to be really good at it so I think in personal

life we have the opportunity to really think about inflection points you want to think about these things as what I'll call options an option is a relatively small investment you're making today that buys you the right but not the obligation to make a bigger investment in the future. And we do this in real life all the time, right? So we go to school, we invest in a skill building course, we agree to go to a training program. We do these things not that we know exactly what what's gonna happen, but we think it'll create opportunities in the future.

So I think what you wanna think to yourself is, is the cost of this, and I mean cost just in terms of effort and emotion and exhausted and everything, is it got a big upside or a not so big upside? One thing that strikes me is that when it comes to running a business or running an organization, the metrics of success are relatively clear. So if you're a business, you know, you have happy employees, you have happy customers, you're making money,

you're a successful business. It's very straightforward in some ways what constitutes a successful business. It's a little bit harder with individuals, I think. It's a little harder at an individual level to say what constitutes success. And I'm wondering, from that point of view, does that make the signs of inflection points a little more difficult at the personal level? Because it's not quite clear

what actually constitutes success or failure. Some of that is subjective, some of that involves a personal sense of what matters to you, what doesn't matter to you. Do some of the things then fail to carry over because of the subjectivity, do you think? Well, I think when it comes to personal success, there's a bunch of really interesting research that's done about what makes people feel happy, what motivates people.

And Dan Pink talks about you want a sense of agency in your life, you want to know that you have the right to make choices and have control. You want to gain a sense of mastery. And that could be many different things. For some people, mastery is woodworking, and then they go very happily to the rest of their formal job in an insurance company and fill out forms all day long, and that's fine with them. And then the last is a sense of purpose, a sense of motivation.

And I think a lot of research suggests that if you are in communities where you are of service to others and you feel that your life has a greater purpose, that you tend to be more satisfied with that life, you tend to find greater fulfillment in it. So when it comes to translating inflection points from the business world to the personal, I think one of the differences is that it's so much more associated with your values and what makes you feel that you've made a contribution and you're feeling fulfilled and you're doing well by other human beings. Rita McGrath studies the science of reinvention at Columbia Business School. She's the author of Seeing Around Corners, How to Spot Inflection Points in Business

Before They Happen. Rita McGrath, thank you so much for joining me today on Hidden Brain. It was an absolute pleasure. Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media. Our audio production team includes Annie Murphy-Paul, Kristen Wong, Laura Quarell, Ryan Katz, Autumn Barnes, Andrew Chadwick, and Nick Woodbury. Tara Boyle is our executive producer. I'm Hidden Brain's executive editor. If you love Hidden Brain, please consider joining our podcast subscription, Hidden Brain Plus.

It's where you'll find episodes you won't hear anywhere else. Plus, you'll be doing your part to help cover the costs of the research, writing, and audio production that go into every episode of the show. You can try Hidden Brain Plus with a free 7-day trial by going to support.hiddenbrain.org. If you're using an Apple device, go to apple.co. slash hiddenbrain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. See you soon.