Like many Americans, I have been sifting through the political analysis of the recently concluded Presidential primary season.  It has been historic for many reasons. To me, the most important historic feature is how a lightly experienced candidate defeated one of the biggest political machines in modern times.  

A recent post to the Harvard Business Review’s blog by Umair Haque resonated with one of MediaSauce’s core messages – people with big desire can pull off big things in today’s world, regardless the size of their budget.   

Here is an excerpt of Mr. Haque’s post, which compares what Barack Obama has accomplished to the likes of Google, Apple, and Whole Foods, because of their success in competing against large, entrenched behemoths.  

Yesterday, the majority of competition was symmetrical: between players with relatively evenly matched resources and capabilities. Think Ford vs GM, P&G vs Unilever, or K-Mart vs Sears: the long march of the oligopolists.

That’s reflected in industrial era assumptions about competition that are still with us – King Kong sized competitors are who boardrooms should worry about most; pint-sized ones aren’t much of a threat.

Right? Wrong.

Today, its time for boardrooms to consider a troubling proposition. Competition is increasingly asymmetrical: pint-sized revolutionaries are able to pop seemingly out of nowhere and topple yesterday’s giants – fast.

Players playing by radically new rules are rewriting the rules of strategy.

We are living in what I think needs be called The Disruptive Age.  Technology has empowered small, focused groups of people to outwit and outlast much larger competition, who are constrained by their legacy systems and unwieldy corporate structures.   

It bears repeating: “Competion is increasingly asymmetrical: pint-sized revolutionaries are able to pop seemingly out of nowhere and topple yesterday’s giants – fast.”

The only question I have now: Are you the pint-sized revolutionary or yesterday’s giant?