How does the underdog win? Or put another way…
How can the favorite lose?
By that I mean – a person, or group, or team that was a sure bet – the best bet in fact: the odds were in their favor – even the real money odds in Las Vegas – say.
And yet they don’t pull through.
What prompted this thought was the (to be 100% politically correct) United States Football Annual Championship Game – the Super Bowl – a night of sports, chili, beer, commercials and an occasional great game.
This year the match up was between a team that had won before and had the undisputed best quarterback in the National Football League – the Indianapolis Colts – and a team that was newer to the scene, had never even been in the finals and came from a city that had seen devastation – the New Orleans Saints.
The odds were clear – some thought the game would be a waste – and yet the underdog won.
The easy message and great motivational thought is simple and clear – maybe too much so. They worked hard – harder than the others, were focused, kept driving, didn’t give up – you know all the clichés.
But this year that just didn’t do it for me. And I started to reflect on what defines “best,” and can one always be best, and if not, what is the solution?
And then I stumbled across this thought from a most interesting source (follow it):
“Only the mediocre are always at their best”. Jean Giraudoux
And there you have it.
Best is a moving target. It is not a static metric. As a definer, it is elusive – here today and gone tomorrow – unless you constantly refresh its source and re-evaluate the playing field on a regular basis.
Bottom line – the danger of thinking you are always best is that very quickly you narrow the completive set and, as they say, a minister with a congregation of one has a very small congregation indeed.
The challenge is clear – today you are the best quarterback in the world – tomorrow you might lose – and then you have to up the game – seriously.
So one can claim best – and be the best of some set, no doubt – or strive always to be better – as opposed to best.
What do you think?
David,
Another interesting message from you which raised my curiosity. I think the lesson is that being the best or doing the best is not the infallible result of constant superiority. All of us, on a given day, can do better than we have done before. Whether the cause is the nature of the challenge, or our search for a superior effort , we can make unusual demands on ourselves and be inspired to overcome our what we believe to be our limitations.
We may have a going average, such as baseball players do but a 250 hitter can be inspired to hit a critical home run. That’s why some baseball or football teams rise up and do the seemingly
impossible. They reach out to do the unusual. What I believe we must constantly do is to challenge people to do the unusual and the unexpected. It’s a basic business principle that some companies and some teams demand that their people must overcome and surpass their normal expectations. It’s an environment of superior execution that we can and should demand and inspire.
Some of the best ideas that we have ever had have come from the least expected sources. We have to prod, goad, demand, inspire and reward those who reach out and make the extra effort. . It’s how great managers inspire sports teams to win without having a superior roster. The best teams don’t always win because some others are trying harder and surpassing their potential.
Lester
This reminds me once again of that beautiful reflection that the difference between rain and snow… between hot water and boiling water… is but one degree. A seemingly inconsequential measure, yet that one extra degree is transformational. Gladwell highlighted this in the Tipping Point. What would happen if we all gave one extra degree of effort each day?
And that’s why they play the games. Life is stochastic, not deterministic. The Colts were favored because the bookies judged that if this game were played ten times, the Colts would win six or seven or maybe even eight times. (I keep my distance from bookies.) But very few contests are decided by skill alone. Randomness, colloquially referred to as good or bad luck, also plays a role. If the Colts had recovered the on-side kick at the start of the first half, this Super Bowl could easily have ended 31-17 in favor of the Colts.
If you are ever offered the choice of being good or being lucky, choose lucky. Since this will never happen in a fair game, we choose and strive to be great (not just good). But, like the Colts, we will lose occasionally, or more often. At least great, grounded in experience, intelligence, teamwork and effort, is within our control.
I generally root for the underdog, except on the rare occasion that my team is favored. In the context of corporate competition, pitches, brand preference, category leadership, and unaided awareness, to cite a few examples, there are generally more underdogs than favorites. In some categories and competitions, everyone is an underdog (strictly speaking this would be a competitor with less than a 50% likelihood of winning). So, the prize will go to the underdog who performs at their best, and encounters receptive clients or consumers or benefits from a viral brushfire. There’s the lucky part.
I am reminded of the butterfly effect in chaos theory – wherein a small seemingly insignificant event can change the course of life – “For want of a nail, a battle was lost”. Maybe the “best quarterback” had an off day because a dog barked in the night and woke him up, or he ate shellfish that led to some discomfort……… the list is endless. And it is this very unpredictability that inspires people to strive to give their best, and succeed against all odds. And how people evolve. But on the other hand, you have many believing that it is all written and we are all just playing out our destinies, and because the underdog was to win on a particular day, the previous night the dog barked!
one degree can change what is written
Hi David,
I’m a new reader…
I actually disagree (how rude of me, on my first comment!!!).
Maybe I was reading your post wrong, but I got the feeling you were, in a way, accusing the Colts and Peyton of a certain arrogance that in fact made the team and himself weaker. That cockiness was the main reason for their loss.
I believe the reason the Saints made such a comeback was precisely those clichés you mentioned. See, there’s always a bit of truth that goes with clichés like that. And what I saw in that game was probably what sports psychologists work hardest at: building confidence, building concentration, and keeping goals in mind even when you’re down, even when you’re behind. Forget about those moments flashing through your brain telling you “Hey, maybe they really ARE a better team”. Shoving those thoughts to the side, catching the ball, putting your head down and running like there’s no tomorrow.
That’s why the Saints won.
Not to mention that their coach took a lot more risks…