 |
| The 1980 US Olympic team celebrates their triumph over the legendary USSR national team in the semifinals of the medal round at Lake Placid. |
It seems that nearly every contest today is either evenly matched or similar to the epic battle between David and Goliath whether it is in the classroom, on the athletic field, or at a conference table. Most spectators tend to cheer in favor of the modern day Goliath without question and fail to even acknowledge the possibility that the David archetype may have what it takes to emerge victorious when the dust settles. These superficial mismatches come in all sorts of shapes and sizes: a family deciding between a pure bred dog and a pure mutt, the 1980 US men’s Olympic hockey team squaring off with the Soviet Union at Lake Placid, or a typically reserved student challenging the comment of a standout student in class. These differing levels of ability and expectations often determine how observers perceive the situation at hand, and tend to dictate that the pure bred, USSR team, and the standout student ought to emerge triumphant.
However, the underdogs—the mutt, the US hockey team, and the reserved student—more often than not tend to have some sort of intangible trait that could potentially provide an advantage of some sort over the physically and tactically superior opponent. This intangible, and possibly non-traditional, trait, which I like to think of as an X-factor, is what gives marginalized parties an edge. The mutt knows the true meaning of love, the group of college hockey players traveled to Lake Placid as a band of brothers, and the quiet student observes and takes in what the rest of the class says and does. These three examples, along with Gladwell’s thoughts, offer more than enough support in favor of adopting the practice of pursuing objectives via non-traditional methods.
