|
Cold War 2.0
There are three tensions that govern the Cold War—nuclear,
ideological and economic. (Not coincidentally, these things overlap
with Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as stated in the
Declaration of Independence. For America and all nations, these
things are existential. They are the things worth bearing any burden
or paying any price to defend). During Cold War 1.0, all three of
those tensions were conveniently colocated in a single Rival—the
Soviet Union. The two nations each possessed more nuclear
weapons by an order of magnitude greater than all other nuclear-
armed nations combined. Both nations were ideological exporters
looking for customers and allies. America was spreading the gospel
of democracy and capitalism and the Soviets were proselytizers of
communism. And their economies were the two largest economies
in the world from the end of World War II until the fall of the Berlin
Wall—the entire length of Cold War 1.0.
Having one primary Worthy Rival has huge advantages. It
provides for a single point of focus for strategies to be developed,
resources to be allocated and the attentions of internal factions to
be pointed. Much was written after the events of September 11,
2001, about the lack of cooperation among America’s intelligence
services, for example. This wasn’t a new development. Those
agencies were always territorial and competitive with each other.
The difference was, when America knew who its Worthy Rival was,
when push came to shove, all the agencies could put aside their
internal gripes to come together to face the common threat. Absent
the identification of any new Worthy Rivals, the internal fighting
among so many of America’s institutions continued unchecked.
Even Republicans and Democrats used to be able to agree that the
Soviet Union represented a greater threat to the United States than
each other and could always come together in a clear common
cause. That is no longer the case. Absent an identified external
Worthy Rival, the two parties now see each other as the existential
threat to the nation. All the while, the real threats to America grow
ever stronger.
So while America was focusing its energies against itself, it failed
to see that the Cold War was still alive and well. Except, unlike
during Cold War 1.0, in Cold War 2.0, there is not one Worthy Rival,
but many. The nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union has been
replaced by North Korea and others. The Soviet economic rivalry
has been replaced by China (which is on course to surpass
America’s economy). The ideological rivalry that the Soviet Union
represented has been replaced by extremists acting under the guise
of religion. Plus Russia still continues to test and check America’s
resolve when possible across all three tensions too.
Like in business, the emergence of new players necessarily
changes the way the game must be played. Blockbuster—the sole
superpower in the movie rental business—failed to appreciate that a
small company like Netflix and an emerging technology like the
internet required them to reexamine their entire business model.
Big publishers doubled down on old models when Amazon showed
up instead of asking how they could update and upgrade their
models in the face of a new digital age. And instead of asking
themselves, “What do we need to do to change with the times,” taxi
companies chose to sue the ridesharing companies to protect their
business models instead of learning how to adapt and provide a
better taxi service. Sears got so big and so rich from sending out
paper catalogues for so many decades that they were too slow to
adapt to the rise of big-box stores like Walmart and ecommerce.
And believing itself without Rival, the behemoth that was Myspace
didn’t even see Facebook coming. What got us here won’t get us
there, and knowing who our Worthy Rivals are is the best way to
help us improve and adapt before it’s too late.
Without a Worthy Rival we risk losing our humility and our
agility. Failure to have a Worthy Rival increases the risk that a once-
mighty infinite player, with a strong sense of Cause, will gently slide
into becoming just another finite player looking to rack up wins.
Where once the organization fought primarily for the good of
others, for the good of the Cause, without that Worthy Rival, they
are more likely to fight primarily for the good of themselves. And
when that happens, when the hubris sets in, the organization will
quickly find its weaknesses exposed and too rigid for the kind of
flexibility they need to stay in the game.
S
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
