Are You An 80/20 Leader?

If you don’t update, you’ll eventually outdate. And when you outdate, you’ll lose your edge. Every leader has to be focused on what’s next for your team. You have to keep your eyes on the future. I teach a concept called The 80/20 Leader that challenges leaders to spend 80% of their time on the G.O. (Growth Opportunities) and only 20% of their time on the D.O. (Daily Operations). Most leaders reverse this percentage and never experience the growth they desire.

When we fail to keep our focus on what’s next, we miss opportunities to have an innovative edge. Take a look at these case studies of highly successful organizations that lost their focus on growth opportunities and paid a fatal price:

Blockbuster

Blockbuster’s decline is a classic example of leadership failing to adapt to industry changes. The company’s leaders were heavily invested in their traditional brick-and-mortar rental model. They treated every challenge as a call to enhance the in-store experience and late fee structures rather than recognizing the digital shift in media consumption. When faced with the rise of digital streaming and DVD-by-mail services like Netflix, Blockbuster continued to double down on its existing model instead of innovating. This inflexibility led to their eventual bankruptcy.

Kodak

Kodak’s downfall illustrates how a strong attachment to a successful past strategy can blind a company to future opportunities. Kodak dominated the film photography industry but failed to transition effectively to digital photography despite having the technology and patents to do so. The leadership continued to focus on film sales, treating every market shift as a reason to push their existing products harder rather than embracing the digital revolution. This led to a significant loss of market share and bankruptcy.

Nokia

Nokia once held a dominant position in the mobile phone market but fell victim to Maslow’s Hammer by clinging to its existing mobile operating system and hardware designs. When smartphones, particularly Apple’s iPhone and Android devices, started revolutionizing the market, Nokia’s leadership was slow to innovate. They continued to focus on their established Symbian O.S. and hardware, failing to recognize the need for a more versatile and user-friendly platform. This rigidity contributed to their rapid decline in market share.

Yahoo

Yahoo’s leadership struggled with its identity and strategic direction, often defaulting to its original strength in web directories and general content. As the internet evolved, Yahoo failed to develop a cohesive strategy to compete with Google’s focused approach to search and Facebook’s dominance in social networking. Instead of innovating in specific areas, Yahoo tried to be a jack-of-all-trades, relying on acquisitions and piecemeal strategies without a unified vision. This lack of adaptability and clear focus led to its gradual decline and eventual sale to Verizon.

BlackBerry

BlackBerry’s leaders failed to recognize the shift in consumer preferences towards touch-screen smartphones with robust app ecosystems. They continued to focus on their core strengths: physical keyboards and enterprise security features. This single-minded approach worked well for a time but became a hindrance as competitors like Apple and Android-based phones offered more versatile and appealing products. Despite clear market signals, BlackBerry’s insistence on pushing its existing models and features resulted in a significant loss of market share and relevance.

As a leader, you must stay in the stream of progress, or you’ll dissipate in a puddle of decay. Embrace continuous learning, innovation, and adaptability to navigate the ever-changing landscape of your industry. By actively seeking growth opportunities and fostering a forward-thinking culture, you ensure that your leadership remains relevant and impactful. Don’t allow stagnation to undermine your potential; instead, harness the power of progress to drive success. Stay curious, stay engaged, and lead with a vision for the future.