The Surprising Lesson from Blitzkrieg

When someone says “blitzkrieg”, we immediately think of the Germans in World War II. But do you know who came up with the concept of blitzkrieg and when? The surprising answer: the British in 1916!

 

Tim Harford explains it all in his wonderful podcast. In 1916, Major JFC Fuller of the British Army saw a demo of the tank and realized this was the solution to the problem of World War I: how to get through the mud, trenches and barbed wire under a hail of machine gun fire? He wrote a paper spelling out how tanks could go deep behind enemy lines at a fast pace. Aided by air fire, they could create confusion and chaos in the enemy camp. It was called “Plan 1919”. As we know all too well, Plan 1919 was never put in action. Rather, it was put in action… but 20 years later... and by the Germans to run across Europe in weeks.

 

This is a pattern that seems to repeat itself, says Harford. Xerox, the huge photocopying machine maker in the 70’s, invented the personal computer, GUI and the mouse. And never productized them. In 1975, Steve Sasson made a digital camera, a device that would eventually destroy Eastman Kodak. Ironically, Sasson worked for Kodak. Yet Kodak never productized it.

 

Why do some ideas slip out of the hands of the incumbents, then thrive in the hands of upstarts? And why does it happen so often?

 

Harford dismisses the most common answer (“People are idiots”). It’s only part part of the reason, he says. Instead, he says, the primary reason is that radical ideas require a radical change to the very nature of the organization. Such ideas never fit into the org structure with minor tweaking. For example, he says, IBM was structured to sell room sized computers to banks. But as computers became small, and customers changed to hobbyists, small businesses, and even parents, IBM needed to change its entire org structure to sell to them (supply chain, vendors, spares, sales, and service). Thus, he says, the problem lies in the fact that organizations that may have changed the world earlier find it much harder to change themselves! Compounding matters, a radical change to an org requires someone with good diplomatic skills. But often, people with new ideas are proud of their ideas and/or critical of the existing structure. Lastly, people with radical idea don't even want to be part of any reorg effort with all its politics and diplomacy: it's just not their cup of tea.

 

Going back to the Blitzkrieg and the British in particular, Harford points out the British army faced the same problem when dealing with the Fuller’s tactics and strategies with tanks: the cavalry (horses) regiment that it would replace and/or reduce in importance opposed it tooth and nail. By definition, a new tank regiment would be competing for resources with the rest of the army. And so it had no allies within the army. To top it off, Fuller was abrasive by nature.

 

Change may be the only constant but achieving it within an org is never easy.