Are you a mathematician or an astronomer in business?

Formula One motor racing history bores will recall Alain Prost’s nickname ‘the professor’; so called because of his famously numerical approach to racing.  In his own words, “my ideal is to get to pole with the minimum effort, and to win the race at the slowest speed possible”. His great rival, the late Ayrton Senna, however, knew only flat-out racing. Prost would slow down if the second-placed man was 30 seconds behind. Senna would instead try to build that lead from 30 seconds to 60! Prost would see a 60 second lead as a waste of energy; Senna would only be satisfied with his maximum performance, regardless of what everyone else might be doing. To Prost a win by 1 second was good enough; to Senna only his maximum potential being fulfilled was good enough. To put labels on things, perhaps Prost was the mathematician and Senna the star-gazer.

What can we learn from this in the world of business? I have seen plenty examples of goods and services being obviously bred from a culture of striving only ever to be just ‘good enough’. Nothing spectacular. But good enough to nevertheless sell. I’ve seen some cars, for example, with inconsistent panel gaps, a poor paint finish, bits of trim loose, and a driving experience as miserable as having a tooth filled. However, such cars sell, in high volume, and generate a handsome profit for their owners.

Producing something relatively rubbish instead of something spectacular involves a significant saving of time and money. One needs fewer (if any) quality controllers, less time is spent on design and engineering, and so on. Maybe, in profit terms, the ‘good enough’ model can make more profit for its owners! Good enough products can get to market quicker than perfected ones, and will be cheaper to produce thus limiting the cost side of the balance sheet. The ‘good enough’ model is also less taxing on its owners: they don’t wake up in the middle of the night worrying about how to be even better. If a lot of customers don’t notice some of the ways in which better products are better, such improvements may be entirely wasted.

However, the ‘good enough’ model is always at greater risk. The threat from competition is much hotter. Take Senna’s 60 second lead, for example: from such an advantageous lead, he could have a blown tyre and a failed front wing, pit twice and still win the race. Prost’s mere 1 second lead, if it suffered such bad luck, would put him down out of the points scorers. Equally, the mediocre motor car might sell until a rival makes one slightly better, then it might stop selling completely. The danger from being only just ahead is that a small lead can be eroded very quickly.

The image and reputational risk is also greater for the ‘good enough’ business, and the sales pitch isn’t as easy. ‘Good enough’ isn’t much of an advertising strap line is it. Certainly not such as easy sell as ‘great’. Customer experience and word of mouth is likely to disproportionately hit average businesses in a negative way, whereas for the great business the opposite is true.

It may be a question of longevity. In the short term, ‘good enough’ might be a win for business owners. They might achieve sales and maximise profits by not performing better than is absolutely necessary. In the long term, ‘good enough’ in a competitive market is always likely to be overtaken by something ‘better’. That is not to say short term thinking is always an entirely bad thing. Some of the richest people out there have got rich on obviously short-term business strategy, and perhaps not with the best product or service. Seizing a moment and enjoying it while it lasts. But generally striving to be the best you can be will endure beyond a business that stops at just ‘good enough’.

The real lesson may be one of analysis and awareness: in realising your position in any market and being aware of your customers and their needs. Prost and Senna would have been able to wax lyrical about why they took such different approaches. And both would have, in their own ways, demonstrated a high level of self-awareness and awareness of the competition. And both achieved a deserved high level of success. The only sure route to failure is a lack of analysis and awareness: not to know where you are on the mathematician / star-gazer-o-meter, or not to know your customers or competition. To be Prost and not know why you are slowing down once the lead is achieved. Or to be Senna and not know why your foot is still hard on the gas already with a long lead. Or to not know what the other is doing, and why. Properly appraise your product or service, your market position, your customers, and feel assured in the deliberate position that leads you to adopt. Avoid being vulnerable for just blindly ‘being’, or coasting, without knowing why. We remember Prost and Senna for their brilliant – if different – strategies. We (and the record books) have long forgotten the drivers who coasted obliviously somewhere in between.