I’m here in посте. I was talking about a neutral position. To avoid being misunderstood, I meant not neutrality itself, but rather a way of assessing the situation—”as if from the outside,” which allows for making the right decisions. However, the topic of “neutrality” struck a chord with me, and I decided to write a little advice for corporate schemers or marketing warriors. 🙂
Let’s say that in your company, one of your sworn friends has had a major argument with another sworn friend. Moreover, your team is far from friendly; it’s more like a terrarium of like-minded individuals. This kind of atmosphere often arises in research institutes or under a manager who lacks leadership qualities. Let’s call them A and B. Their quarrel is so intense that “only one must remain,” so both A and B are asking for your help and want you to join their camp.
For the market, you can assume that you have two competitors, A and B, and both are approaching you with an idea, let’s say, for co-branding, a joint advertising campaign, or an alliance. What other strategies do you have in your survival toolkit during a crisis?
Now, let’s say that A is stronger than B. Not by much, but stronger. A is also stronger than you. B, on the other hand, is weaker than you.
Who should you form an alliance with? You should ally with B. Support the weak. Out of humanitarianism? Yeah, right!
Let’s assume that you, seeing the strength of A and “betting” on his victory over B, decide to support A. Okay, you’ve dealt with B. Who will A have left to deal with? You. Moreover, A won’t feel any particular gratitude for this alliance; on the contrary, he will think of himself as your patron. Sooner or later, either you will be destroyed or you will become dependent on A.
Let’s consider the second option: you maintain neutrality. We’ll discuss your moral qualities as a spineless person unworthy of respect later; for now, let’s focus on the facts. A and B will fight, A will win, becoming even stronger (more influential in the corporation, gaining a larger market share at the expense of the victim) and… will look at you and remember how you refused to support him. A bad story with a bad ending. By the way, by refusing to support B, who really needed it, you lost a loyal ally who could have seen you as a protector.
The best option is to team up with B. Together, you can easily deal with A, and then you’ll be the main player in the remaining pair. If you want, you can absorb (get rid of) B, or if you prefer, you can keep him under your influence. Moreover, B will willingly honor you as a patron and will perceive your influence as assistance.
Maintaining “neutrality” is the most shortsighted move of all scenarios. Moreover, it’s also cowardly. If a commotion is brewing around you, you need to take a side. In any case, your chances of a favorable outcome will be greater than if you remain neutral.
As arguments “against,” do not mention Switzerland. It is a special case and it wasn’t really neutral anyway.