It is common perception, both within and outside a firm, that large companies in an industry are invincible. The reality is quite different. Barring a few sectors where scale offers real benefits, in most other sectors, size is merely an illusion of power which, many a time, proves ephemeral.

There are umpteen instances where smaller players, perceived as underdogs, have become formidable competitors within a short span of time and posed a real threat to their larger counterparts in the industry. A few examples of such companies in our own backyard are Micromax (in mobiles), AMW (heavy vehicles), and ACE and Schwing Stetter (construction equipment). Internationally, Facebook, Google and Apple — companies once perceived as underdogs — now rule the global technology landscape.

In a recent talk, Malcolm Gladwell probes the legendary David vs Goliath story to deliver this insight: ‘‘Giants are not as strong and powerful as they seem and sometimes a shepherd boy has a sling in his pocket.’’

The giant-killer event is said to have taken place some 3,000 years back, when the Kingdom of Israel, headed by King Saul, was under attack by the Philistine army. The two armies faced each other, camped for battle on opposite sides of a steep valley, but neither wanted to make the first move. To break the deadlock, the two sides decided they would first each send in their mightiest warrior for a duel.

The Philistines sent their mighty warrior Goliath — a terrifying giant who, legend has it, was 6’ 9” with heavy armour and equipped with sword, javelin and spear. None of the Israeli soldiers wanted to take him on, fearing their certain death. But a young shepherd boy named David volunteered to fight the giant and convinced the king to give him a chance, claiming he had years of experience defending his flock against lions and wolves.

The King insisted that he take the weapons and armour to give him a fighting chance, but David refused saying he had no use for such equipment and would rather fight his own way.

Goliath, the giant, was insulted when he saw the shepherd boy. David pulled out a stone from his pocket, put it in his sling and hitthe giant in the soft spot on his forehead between his eyes. As Goliath fell unconscious, David ran to the giant, snatched his sword and cutoff his head. Seeing this, the Philistines are said to have retreated

Perception vs Reality

It is common for one to come to mistakenly conclude that David, just a shepherd boy and the underdog, won an improbable victory over the mighty Goliath. But according to Malcolm Gladwell, David was actually destined for victory.

Gladwell’s arguments: To begin with, the sling is not a child’s catapult but actually a weapon widely used by soldiers that could shoot projectiles at speeds of over 30 metres per second. Also, the stones in the area were not normal stones but made of barium sulphate, which is twice as dense as normal stones.

This means the rock fired from David’s sling would have had ballistics similar to a 45-mm handgun. Experienced slingers could have enough accuracy to kill a bird in flight.

In ancient warfare, slingers were equivalent to snipers and a key asset for winning against heavy infantry (foot soldiers). David’s forte was the slingshot — a powerful weapon he had tested on lions while protecting his sheep.

Given Goliath’s heavy armour, gigantic body-build and weapons that are useful only in short-range combat, he was obviously ill-prepared for a precision slinger and thus destined to lose.

So, just as David was not as meek as he seemed, Goliath too was not what he seemed. Scientists speculate that Goliath probably suffered from acromegaly — a condition of gigantism caused by over-production of the growth hormone. A common side-effect of acromegaly is poor vision, which could explain his slow reaction to David’s slingshot.

Relevance to Business

The world of business is filled with stories of large and seemingly powerful companies in their respective industries being driven out by much smaller, younger competitors.

Most of the time, the common root cause behind these stories is under-estimating competition, not expecting a change in the rules of the game and slow reaction time when it does occur.

These are what did-in once mighty companies such as AOL, Xerox, Kodak and many others. I would argue that even Nokia, Microsoft and Infosys were going down a similar path until recently, when they seem to have initiated some course correction.

(The author is a business consultant.

Feedback may be sent to >perspective@thehindu.co.in )

Related Topics