It’s called the principle of two weaknesses. It is a strategy in chess. It was developed by Grandmaster Aron Nimzowitsch and detailed in the book, “My System,” back in 1925 and still considered a core strategy in chess to this day.

 The strategy states that a single advantage, or weakness in the opponent’s position, is rarely enough to win. Victory requires creating a second, distant weakness to overstretch the opponent's defenses.

While born in the world of a game, the principle can be said to have a powerful framework for strategic decision-making in real life, in career development, complex projects, and conflict resolution.

The philosophy behind the strategy is “fix, attack, and shift,” suggesting to first "fix" a weakness. In other words, make it impossible to defend a move easily, then, secondly, attack it. If your opponent holds firm, create a second weakness on the opposite side of the board. The opponent’s resources become overloaded and their position collapses.

In real life, this translates to diversifying your strategy to prevent opponents or obstacles from defending against only one line of attack.

Think about it this way (not exactly the most positive and flowery approach, but): You are competing for a promotion. You are the more technical savvy. Your first "weakness" to create for your competition might be to highlight your technical superiority. However, if they are strong in other areas, that may not be enough. If the job requires managing a key, high-visibility project, and applying the principle, you could create a second weakness, perhaps by strengthening your own public speaking skills or expanding your networking reach, thus overshadowing your competitor on two fronts: technical competence and visibility.

In business, a company might struggle to compete with a competitor’s low prices, weakness one. Instead of just engaging in a price war, the company creates a second front—superior customer service—forcing the competitor to lose on quality, even if they win on price.

Additionally, complex, long-term goals can often be managed using this principle. If you are trying to change your lifestyle, focusing only on diet (weakness one) might fail because it is easy to "defend" (meaning, you could always slip or entertain too many cheat days). By simultaneously creating a second weakness, such as lack of sleep or sedentary behavior—and addressing both, you overhaul your system. By attacking the problem on two fronts, you prevent "overloading" your willpower on just one issue, making the overall goal easier to achieve.

Finally, in negotiations, focusing only on a single, contentious point often leads to a stalemate, where both sides hold their ground. The principle of two weaknesses suggests diversifying the negotiation. By bringing in a second, unrelated issue—perhaps a technicality or a future incentive—you shift the focus away from the initial rigid point of conflict. This forces the other party to look at the broader picture and re-allocate their attention, often leading to a breakthrough where they become willing to concede on the first point to secure the second.

Quite simply, the principle of two weaknesses reminds us to avoid one-track-mind thinking. It aims to teach patience and comprehensive strategy and avoid risk by identifying, fixing, and attacking multiple, distant (often long-term or out-of-the-box thinking) challenges.

In today’s manufacturing climate, theses challenges can seem like the climate itself, attempting to create those weaknesses. As Steve Bieszczat writes, “Today, quality is an economic engine in its own right—driving productivity, customer loyalty, and profitability. Yet, as manufacturers face greater demands to ensure quality, they must also keep pace with a global market that is accelerating under economic pressure on one side and environmental constraints on the other.”

So, read Steve’s article, “Driving Quality in a World That Won’t Slow Down” on our web site and everything else we have to offer in this month’s Quality.

Enjoy and thanks for reading!