In last night's Super Bowl, the San Francisco 49ers won the coin toss at the beginning of overtime. They scored a field goal, giving them a slim lead. However, the Kansas City Chiefs, when they took over on offense, scored a touchdown to win the game. This outcome raises an interesting lesson that goes beyond the NFL's new overtime rules.
When the first team plays offense in overtime, there are four possible outcomes:
1. They score a touchdown and win immediately. 2. They score a field goal, giving the opposing team a chance to tie or win. 3. They turn the ball over, giving the opposing team an opportunity to score and win. 4. They punt, giving the opposing team a chance to score and win.
The issue lies in the advantage gained by the second team to play offense. They have the advantage of knowing what they need to do to win and can adjust their approach and risk tolerance accordingly. This was evident in last night's game. 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan seemed to be playing for the third possession, while Chiefs coach Andy Reid knew his team had to score when they got the ball. It mattered. Reid knew that every series was four downs, and he understood that a touchdown would win the game, while a field goal would restart the same process.
To gain a better understanding, we can look to the Marines' MCDP 1 Warfighting for some definitions. The Marines define offense as taking the initiative and defense as a response with a negative aim: blocking or counterattacking to seize the initiative.
In the context of the original 49ers who came to California during the gold rush, we see a parallel. Some took the offensive approach and made fortunes, while others played defense, supplying gold miners with tools and clothing. This defensive approach offered a steadier, more predictable risk/reward tradeoff, creating real value. One noteworthy example is Levi Strauss, who created durable trousers, eventually known as blue jeans.
Applying this concept to negotiations, it often proves advantageous to respond rather than initiate. Allowing the other party to present their terms first allows you to react by accepting if their terms are better or countering with your terms. By doing so, you mitigate the risk of starting too high or too low.
In an interesting business example, Puritan Cooking Oil's competitor, Wesson Oil, ran a print advertisement with false claims. Instead of immediately reacting, the Puritan team waited for Wesson to pay for a TV ad with the same message. Once the ad aired, Puritan challenged the claims and emerged victorious. This delay set Wesson back and caused them to waste their production money while Puritan grew by 50% over the next two years.
Another example involves Sorrento Cheese. When Sorrento planned a national expansion, their competitor Pollio strategically waited until Sorrento had paid all the necessary fees and launched their national advertising. Then, Pollio pulled all its advertising and promotional spending from every market except New York, focusing all their resources there. Within weeks, Pollio gained 10 share points in New York, while Sorrento lost 10 share points, eroding their profitability and forcing them to cancel national advertising and promotion.
In line with the Marines' perspective, being on offense and taking the initiative is generally favorable. However, there are situations, such as negotiating, where it may be advantageous to start on the defensive side and set up a stronger counter-attack. The key is to be deliberate about when to go on offense first and when it's better to respond initially.
Taking inspiration from last night's Super Bowl, the lesson extends beyond the football field. It serves as a reminder to carefully assess each situation and strategically decide whether to lead with offense or defense for a more favorable outcome.
