So the last time I did one of these, there was a bit of a to-do from a number of people about my choice of example. So I would like to offer this disclaimer: this example is to serve as an extended metaphor for a point that I am trying to make in an interesting and unique way. The comparisons are being made directly between the parties mentioned and are based on a limited amount of exposure to the example groups, so please refrain from comments about how “wrong” my assessment is. It’s just an extended metaphor. Also, I use a Windows PC.
When it comes to market dominance in the computing world, Microsoft, despite what some commercials may have you believe, is the clear front-runner. And for many computer-buyers, a Microsoft PC is the easy choice to make. A variety of companies make computers with their operating system, which creates competition that is often based on improved (or new types of) hardware or different price points. Rather than spending money innovating hardware and core system software, Microsoft chooses what works best for its competitors. Windows code development and add-ons are a more mainstream version of many Linux operating systems, while new media playing software follows the successes of Apple’s programs. So even though Microsoft may not be an innovator, it has built an empire by learning what critical wants and needs others have, and adapting to them.
When it comes to competing with its next-largest rival in computers, Apple*, and its biggest online rival, Google, Microsoft has one clear strategy: react. When Apple developed the iPod, Microsoft waited for a market to develop and released the Zune. Google and Gmail’s software developments are followed by similar services offered through Bing and MSN email. And when a new company creates an innovative new product, Microsoft will try to purchase that company rather than develop. Microsoft has positioned itself as a company whose reactive practices have allowed it to follow the right trends a bit later to make safer business moves.
Although one could argue that Microsoft is too reactive (especially in its own ads), its practices have made it a fairly reliable, if safe, brand to consumers. Being seen as an innovator is a definite benefit for smaller companies, but larger firms like Microsoft and Wal-Mart cannot make such drastic changes without risking alienation from a large contingent of their customers. Smaller, less noticeable innovations can be made, because no one has a lock on creativity.
When you look at your personal brand, your role in your company or your job search, are you developing new ideas or reflecting those of others? If your position is less essential and concrete, you may have more freedom to be imaginative. As such, you can take more risks to harness your inspiration effectively. In the case of those whose roots have dug in, an essential role in an organization (or a too-specific niche), complacency can set in, leading to personality changes that are not conducive to originality.
So the question is: do you want to be active or reactive in your career? Neither path is the “right” one, as you can find success on either route. But the longer you establish yourself in one category, the more difficult it will be to transition to the other.
Or, to put it another way: Are you a Mac or a PC?
