The above saying is actually from an old Chinese idiom. I have thought about it a lot, and have struggled with that too. Finally, I have concluded that it is true. Here are some of my thinkings that help me arrive at the conclusion.
Imagine a bent metal tube—perhaps from a bicycle frame or a construction scaffold. If you wish to restore it to its original straight form, simply pushing it in the opposite direction is often the most effective approach. A skilled metalworker understands that to remove a distortion, they must apply an equal and opposite force, overcorrecting slightly before the material settles back into alignment.
This principle, observed in the physical world, is not just a mechanical trick—it is a fundamental rule that applies to mathematics, engineering, business, personal growth, and even societal transformations. History shows that systems—whether mechanical, financial, or cultural—often require overcorrection before reaching equilibrium.
Engineering Perspective: Control Systems and Overcorrection
In engineering, the concept of overcorrection is well understood in control systems, particularly in proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers. These systems, commonly used in robotics, manufacturing, and autopilot mechanisms, rely on calculated adjustments to keep a process stable. However, a fundamental part of their function is intentional overshoot.
For example, if a robotic arm is programmed to move to a precise position, a simple correction may not be enough. Due to inertia and external forces, the arm may still fall short of the target. A PID controller anticipates this and temporarily moves the arm slightly past the desired point before settling back into place (Åström & Murray, 2010).
A similar concept applies in industrial temperature control. When heating a system, simply stopping at the target temperature can lead to inefficiencies due to residual heat. Instead, the controller briefly overshoots, knowing that natural dissipation will bring it back to equilibrium (Dorf & Bishop, 2017). This mirrors the way a bent metal tube must be pushed beyond straightness before springing back into perfect alignment.
The idea of overcorrection is also deeply rooted in mathematical models of systems. Consider a function that models a system’s deviation from equilibrium. Suppose a bent tube’s shape is represented by f(x) = ax2, where aa is a coefficient determining the bend’s severity. To correct it, applying an opposite force described by g(x) = -bx2 is required. However, if b is too small, the tube remains slightly bent. The correct approach is to apply a larger force, ensuring that when released, elasticity restores it to perfect straightness.
Application in Business and Management
This concept appears in economic models as well. When inflation spirals out of control, central banks do not merely nudge interest rates upward; they often impose aggressive hikes to counteract the trend (Bernanke, 2015). This temporary overcorrection is necessary because financial systems, like physical ones, exhibit inertia. The logic is the same: small corrections often fail to undo an imbalance, requiring a forceful push in the opposite direction.
The same principle applies in business and leadership. When an organization deviates from its desired trajectory—whether in culture, financial health, or strategic focus—leaders often need to introduce a bold corrective measure that temporarily shifts the organization too far in the opposite direction before achieving balance.
When IBM faced collapse in the early 1990s, its traditional hardware-focused model was failing. Simply shifting resources to software and services might not have been enough. Instead, Lou Gerstner led an aggressive transformation, abandoning much of IBM’s old structure, cutting tens of thousands of jobs, and pivoting sharply toward consulting (Gerstner, 2002). The initial shock was painful, but the drastic shift laid the foundation for IBM’s long-term success.
Similarly, when Ford Motor Company was on the brink of bankruptcy in the 2000s, CEO Alan Mulally took extreme measures, cutting entire brands like Mercury, closing factories, and securing massive loans. This level of overcorrection was necessary to reposition Ford for the future, and the company ultimately avoided the government bailouts that other automakers required (Hoffman, 2012).
Corporate culture shifts also demand overcorrection. When a company becomes stagnant, simply encouraging innovation often fails. Elon Musk’s restructuring of Twitter (now X) illustrates this idea. By cutting staff, dismantling traditional hierarchies, and enforcing rapid product rollouts, Musk forced a cultural reset (Isaac, 2023). Whether successful or not, the logic is clear: gradual change is insufficient when deeply ingrained behaviors must be undone.
Even in customer service, a similar principle applies. Amazon, under Jeff Bezos, initially sacrificed profitability to create an extreme customer-first culture. Offering free returns, one-day shipping, and customer refunds without question were radical overcorrections that conditioned consumers to expect seamless service. The financial pain in the short term paid off, as customers became deeply loyal, cementing Amazon’s dominance in global retail (Stone, 2013).
Application in Personal Life
On an individual level, breaking habits and reshaping behaviors often require more than small adjustments. When someone struggles with an unhealthy diet, for instance, simply eating slightly less junk food is often ineffective. Instead, a dramatic short-term reset—such as a whole-foods-only diet or intermittent fasting—can serve as a necessary shock to the system. Research on habit formation suggests that drastic changes sustained for at least 30 days help rewire the brain’s reward pathways, making long-term moderation easier (Clear, 2018).
Overcoming procrastination follows a similar pattern. A chronic procrastinator who merely schedules more breaks or sets soft deadlines may not see real change. However, an aggressive countermeasure—such as completely eliminating social media for a month or following a strict “deep work” schedule—can jolt the brain into new patterns of focus and discipline (Newport, 2016).
Societal Changes
History shows that societies, too, often require radical overcorrection before achieving balance. When deep injustices or imbalances exist, gradual reforms may not be enough; only dramatic action creates meaningful change.
The U.S. civil rights movement exemplifies this. The fight for racial equality did not succeed by merely requesting policy changes. It required large-scale protests, boycotts, and legal battles—sometimes appearing extreme—to force a shift (Branch, 1989). Martin Luther King Jr.’s peaceful but highly disruptive marches, alongside Malcolm X’s more radical stance, created enough pressure to push the system beyond its previous inertia, ultimately resulting in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Economic history provides similar lessons. The Great Depression demanded an extraordinary response. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was not a mild adjustment; it was an overcorrection, involving sweeping banking reforms, massive public works programs, and social security initiatives (Kennedy, 1999). Critics saw it as excessive, yet without it, economic recovery might never have taken hold.
Environmental policy has also relied on dramatic countermeasures. In the early 2010s, China’s air pollution reached crisis levels, with smog so thick that cities were barely visible. Instead of slow adjustments, the government shut down coal plants, imposed strict emissions laws, and limited car usage in major cities. These radical interventions led to a significant improvement in air quality (Shapiro, 2020).
Final Thoughts
Just as a bent metal tube requires force in the opposite direction to straighten, businesses, individuals, and societies often need to overcorrect before finding balance. Engineering, mathematics, business, personal development, and history all reveal the same truth: small corrections often fail, and only bold, intentional shifts can reset a system. The key is knowing when to apply this strategy and ensuring that after bending too far the other way, the system returns to its optimal state.
References
- Åström, K. J., & Murray, R. M. (2010). Feedback Systems: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Princeton University Press.
- Bernanke, B. S. (2015). The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Crisis and Its Aftermath. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Branch, T. (1989). Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63. Simon & Schuster.
- Clear, J. (2018). Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones. Penguin.
- Dorf, R. C., & Bishop, R. H. (2017). Modern Control Systems. Pearson.
- Gerstner, L. V. (2002). Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? Inside IBM’s Historic Turnaround. HarperBusiness.
- Hoffman, B. (2012). American Icon: Alan Mulally and the Fight to Save Ford Motor Company. Crown Business.
- Isaac, M. (2023). The Battle for the Future of Twitter. Harper Business.
- Kennedy, D. M. (1999). Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. Oxford University Press.
- Newport, C. (2016). Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World. Grand Central Publishing.
- Shapiro, J. (2020). China Goes Green: Coercive Environmentalism for a Troubled Planet. Polity Press.
- Stone, B. (2013). The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon. Little, Brown.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.