
Many of the rules that apply in businesses were set years ago and have endured by force of habit. A good example is the QWERTY keyboard, which is in use on all desktop computers. The original QWERTY layout of keys on the typewriter keyboard was designed in the 1870s to slow down the speed of typing because fast operators were causing typewriter keys to jam together. By putting the most commonly used letters e, a, i, o away from the index fingers of the hands, speed was reduced and jams were avoided. Those mechanical jams are long gone but we are stuck with a rule for a keyboard layout that is outdated and inappropriate. How many of the rules in your organisation are QWERTY standards – set up for circumstances that no longer apply today?
If you can find a way to rewrite the rules of the game so that it suits you rather than your competitors then you can gain a remarkable advantage. In the late 1970s the Swiss watch industry was suffering from fierce competition from the Japanese. Major brands like Omega, Longines and Tissot were in serious trouble. Nicholas Hayek took dramatic action. He merged two of the largest Swiss watch manufacturers ASUAG and SSIH to form a new company, Swatch. It took a radically different approach to watch design, creating a low-cost, high-tech, artistic, and emotional watch. Within five years the new company was the largest watch-maker in the world. Swatch rewrote the rules of the watch industry. Swiss watches had competed against mass produced brands by focussing on tradition and quality but Swatch changed the parameters by making watches that were fun, fashionable, and collectable.
Every business operates in an environment of written and unwritten rules. Many of these boundaries and restrictions are self-imposed and accepted without questioning. Often it is the newcomer to an industry who can ask the question, ‘What would happen if we broke the rules?’
This is what Richard Branson did when he launched Virgin Atlantic to take on the might of British Airways, American Airlines and Pan Am. They all played by the same rules; first class passengers enjoyed the best service, business passengers received adequate service and economy passengers got very few frills. Branson eliminated first class and instead gave first class service to business passengers. He introduced innovations such as free drinks for economy passengers, videos in headrests and limousine service to the airport.
The law of the land has to be obeyed but most business rules are there to be broken. Anita Roddick, founder of the retail chain The Body Shop, succeeded by deliberately doing the opposite of what the industry experts did. She saw that most pharmacies were stuffy places that sold toiletries, perfumes and medicinal creams in expensive packaging and pretty bottles. She did the opposite by packaging the goods in Body Shop stores in cheap, plastic bottles with plain labels. It saved cost and it made a statement that the contents of the packages were what mattered. The Body Shop was seen as natural, spiritual, and in tune with an environmentally-conscious consumer.
Picasso broke the rules on what a face should look like and Gaudi broke the rules on what a building should look like. To achieve radical innovation you have to challenge all the assumptions that govern how things should look in your environment. Business is not like sport with well-defined rules and referees. It is more like art. It is rife with opportunity for the lateral thinker who can create new ways to provide the goods and services that customers want.
















Yes, I agree. Breaking the rules is what leads to business innovation. Thanks for the cool post!
Thanks for the post. It makes me wonder how I can break the rule in my industry. We all know education needs a major overhaul…
Conventional knowledge can be useful though for starters. You must know the rules before you can break them.
A GREAT book for systematically breaking the rules are “How to Think Like Einstein”.
Incidentally, I don’t think you need to know the rules in order to break them. That can leave you in research paralysis. People who get things done have a bias toward massive action, then they learn what they need to along the way. If they happen to figure out a novel way to achieve something before they learn the “right” way to do it then so much the better! Some rules save you, some rules kill you. Knowing which is which is the hard part. Only action can tell…
hey sloane:
what’s an emotional watch?
get a proofreader dude!
I’d have to vote for Frank Lloyd Wright for breaking the mold on how buildings should look like and function. He was certainly a revolutionary…
Best,
Bob
emotional watch – who cares mark. Great post!
If they happen to figure out a novel way to achieve something before they learn the “right” way to do it then so much the better
I have to correct you on the qwerty comments. That is a falousy that qwerty keyboards slow down typist, dvorak tried also to confure up studies to prove this, but neither has been scientificly validated
Conventional knowledge can be useful though for starters. You must know the rules before you can break them.
Paul: Great Post. I completely agree. As an adviser and executive manager I have seen more than my fair share of innovation held hostage to outdated concepts and ideas. Few ask is there a better way to do this now? Is what we are doing still relevant? You have to challenge the assumptions to address these questions. The good news is if you do, better results are likely.
If there isn’t a red light, No traffic police,I don’t know what’s will happen.
Nice topic, but requires a fact check:
The arrangement of QWERTY keys was not designed to slow down typists. It was designed to place keys that commonly moved one after the other in such a way that the mechanics of the stroke did not conflict. Imagine this: you type the word “SO”, and as the “S” bar is returning, the “O” bar crosses its path in the limited chassis space. Oops. The result may or may not be to slow people down, but the reason stated is not the same as the actual engineering reason for the QWERTY design.
That’s my understanding anyway. Look into it and see if you agree. Wikipedia has some sources on it if you’re doing a quickie search.
Robert’s explanation of QWERTY keyboards is more plausible. I don’t find the design slowing me down much, though I use an unusual keyboard most of the time (Microsoft Ergonomic 4000).
However, I hear the Dvorak layout (no the home row isn’t DVORAK) is much better once you get used to it. Getting “used” to it takes many years, so almost no one makes the jump. I’ve been typing on a computer since I was 10… which is 8 years. Giving up 8 years experience is a big deal. Usually you should just be conventional.
So some successful people are successful because they broke rules. But it can’t be taken as mandatory that you have to break a rule to achieve success.
The focus should be on finding the best way to solve a problem, no matter it is breaking a rule or not.
That’s where our own discretion comes in. Great post though!
That’s so interesting about the Qwerty keyboards. I love creative solutions! Thanks for the article.
There can be a slogan: “Think originally – let off the outdated dogmas!”. I think originality and fresh thinking is a part of venturing something new. Many people are afraid to change/break the rules due to lack of originality and laziness.
Yes, some of these companies have made innovations and memorable products. That doesn’t always lead to long term success. Swatch watches are no longer the huge hit they once were, while many people still understand and covet the value of a finely made Swiss watch. Sustainability is something often overlooked by innovators and out-of-the-box thinkers.
Apparently it doesn’t help spelling.
That snack cupboard is a great idea! (As long as I get that exercise regimen going…)