In the professional and business field, we are always competing. We would like the conditions to have a even floor. That would be ideal, but it is not real. Sometimes we have to be the most powerful rival, the one who knows more, has better experience and others have to be the weakest. To participate in a competition, the first thing we must know is what our position is and from there. There are those who say that the best strategy against a stronger rival is flight and I do not agree, at least, not always.
The world of sports gives us magnificent examples. Few people remember who Robin Söderling is and most people know who Rafael Nadal is. The Spanish tennis player was known as the king of clay and has been the winner of the Roland Garros Tournament par excellence. In 2009, there was a surprise encounter: Robin Söderling, a Swedish player who was ranked in the 23rd place of the ATP, faced Nadal, who was the number 2 of the world and the king of the tournament. I imagine that when the Swede learned against which person he was going to play that game he wanted to flee, but he did not.
Söderling appeared on the Paris clay court and faced the then four -time tournament champion, who was the broad favorite and enjoyed the support of the Parisian public. The circumstances could not have been worse for the Swedish who knew that his rival had never been defeated on those courts, he had not even won the then number one in the world Roger Federer. With all this information, any analyst would have recommended not running the risk and fleeing. But, he didn’t.
On May 31, 2009, the Swedish player knew that Rafael Nadal was for his victory number thirty -two and consecutive in Roland Garros. It was his fifth participation and had always won. Until he faced Robin Soderling. To the surprise of his own and strangers – and by Rafael Nadal in the first place – in the round of 16 of the French open, the Swedish stopped Nadal’s march. After three hours and thirty minutes, Söderling became the first man to defeat Rafael Nadal in Roland Garros: 6-2, 6-7 (2), 6-4 and 7-6 (2) It would be the final marker for the Swedish.
And, in sports and business, risk and uncertainty are a constant that cannot be eliminated. Certainty is a non -existent variable. Everyone, even Rafael Nadal, were surprised when the probability turned in favor of a player who had neither the trajectory nor the tennis height of the most powerful rival. However, Söderling understood how to attack a more powerful rival. He found the value to appear on the court and found a way to defeat him.
To defeat an opponent and more if it is a more powerful one you have to do an analysis of strengths and weaknesses, threats and opportunities invested. The inverted SWOT, unlike the traditional, seeks to compare. An inverted SWOT (or “SWOT”) is a variant of the traditional SWOT analysis, but instead of limiting yourself in analyzing strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats, an extra step is taken: the internal variables (strengths/weaknesses) are crossed with external (opportunities/threats) to generate concrete strategies.
The key is that it does not stay in the diagnosis, but uses it as a basis for strategic formulation. It begins with the traditional analysis of SWOT, looking for the internal capacities that give us advantage, external factors that are favorable to us, the internal aspects that subtract competitiveness and the external factors that can affect us. Then, we do the same analysis, but now of our rival and crossed it.
We use our strengths to enhance what we do well and analyze those of the rival not to attack on that side. That is, we generate an offensive strategy. Then, a defensive to shield us using the position we dominate. We also analyze the weaknesses and others. Sometimes, the strongest rival has a very evident weakness that we can take advantage of. For example, very large corporations are very powerful, but they have bureaucratic processes that make them slow: we can be more agile. We take advantage of that weak weakness, we devise a strategy to correct it and constitute it as a competitive advantage. That is, we generate an adaptive strategy. And, also, we take care of our weaknesses to generate survival tactics. We know that they can beat us and we have to be prepared to minimize damage and try to reduce risks.
That is, we prepare for the confrontation, for competition. Yes and we do it with the awareness that we can lose, but we want to win. We compete instead of fleeing. We accept the risk and measure uncertainty. If Robin Söderling had retired from the tournament before measuring himself with Rafael Nadal, he would have lost and won that afternoon in Paris. If he had retired, he would never have become a finalist of a Grand Slam tournament and would not have that trophy with his name.
It’s true, you don’t always win. Robin Söderling faced Roger Federer in the final of that tournament and lost. There are no magical formulas that guarantee us success or sports or business. But, the preparation is not left over. If there is something that is more likely to happen, we lose if we do not prepare. Can we win? Yes, of course; But it is unlikely. We can lose if we dedicate ourselves to analyze the rival, of course, but it is less likely.
The inverted SWOT is an exercise that helps us enter better armed to a competition that is unequal, little couple and opens a window of opportunity. Fleeing, it is almost never the best option. It is better to compete, understanding that we can lose and measuring what is at stake. If we run away, we lose. If we compete, we can win. Ask Robin Söderling.
About the author:
Corner: (email protected)
Twitter: @CecyDuranMena
The opinions expressed are only the responsibility of their authors and are completely independent of the position and the editorial line of Forbes Mexico.
Follow business information and today in Forbes Mexico
