Business Strategy and the Game Chess - Literature review Example

Introduction There are many things heard about a strategy, which led to the creation of its varying definitions. There are many ways on how to definea strategy, and this applies to all walks of life, in sports, in personal life, in politics, and in businesses. There are even analogies that could be clearly employed just to be able to understand the bottom line concept of a strategy. The game of chess is one remarkable analogy that could be employed in order to understand what a strategy is. The work at hand explores and presents the ideas on how strategy can be understood just as like the chess game played in the real life. This paper primarily considers the chess metaphor business strategy in great detail. The business strategy and the game of chess According to Niccolo Machiavelli, the end justifies the means. Saying this reveals that Machiavelli, a great philosopher and who happened to present the vital ideas and philosophical thoughts in politics and business proposed the point that it is important to employ strategy in order to generate a remarkable output in the end. However, this output is dependent on what exactly are the things implemented in the actual setting in order to achieve the future goals. Considering the point that Machiavelli was one of the pioneering proponents of the employment of strategy and his way of thinking was linked to the art of war, it is therefore implied that the strategy has “undoubted roots in military thinking” (Carter et al., 2008, p.2). Therefore, there is no doubt that the chess game played in real life has remarkable resemblance to the actual war in the past and the form of war that may have existed at present. The characters used in the game of chess have relevant connection to the actual characters found in war. For example, the primary front liners in the game of chess are the soldiers that will be responsible to face the opponent’s attack in order to protect the character of the king. This alone depicts the fact that the chess game is patterned on how the war is initiated between the two raging sides which happened to be able to bear in mind for achieving the win in the end, as each side in the actual war hopes for the win. The victor must remarkably subdue the opponent and should manifest the entire dominance while initiating the actual art of war. Employing this thought in the corporate world is quite a unique metaphor that will truly link the business strategy to the game of chess. For instance, the war with competitors, the quest for domination, search for market share, quest for competitive advantage and so on, are just relevant forms of actions that could truly justify that there is war going on in the corporate world. This war is remarkably considered as the actual form or equivalence of the prevailing competition by which each key player is ensuring a good place to dominate in the competition or be the cut above the other. Many people see this taking its place in the mobile phone industry for instance, where Apple Incorporated, Samsung, Nokia, Sony Ericson and other important key players are having their dynamic participations in the industry. Many people even see this in the automobile industry by which Toyota, Ford, Honda and other key players are taking part in the very tough competition of ensuring high level of customer satisfaction. Due to this prevailing tough competition, firms or participating businesses have no other choice but to adopt vital strategies prior or in relation to their survival in business. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that the business strategy is a relevant tool that will keep the competition from taking one’s firm’s business away (Thomas, 1993, p.70). The above illustrations are truly making sense in the actual scenario, but specifically in the age of tough competition, advancement of technology and the sophisticated existence of globalisation because of the prevailing digital social networks, firms are always looking forward to engage in a substantial change that will make a difference for good. In fact, many people saw this in the actual scenario presented in the case of Apple Incorporated, Wal-Mart and other top brands and companies in the world today. These firms have the opportunity to make a difference not just in the local but global context of the coverage of their scope. These firms will have to face the battle each day of their existence in the business world. In order for them to compete, they have to learn to fight back. However, fighting back alone is not a guarantee that will be able to succeed in the achievement of their goals. They need to employ something in order to make a difference for their advantage. One essential tool they can possibly create is a strategy. A strategy may have varying point of views from various perspectives. This can even lead to its diversified meaning depending on how it has to be or is actually used in an organisation. As a result, one may be able to find that there are many thoughts and even conflicting ideas regarding the concept of strategy. However, one important point that will lead to the efficient understanding of what a strategy is all about, and as already stated, is through employing the analogy of the game of chess and applying its context in the business environment. In general, there are still many ways to compare the actual business environment to the chess game. The pattern of moves on the board could represent the prevailing nature of the industry structure, and the business resources and activity patterns (Williamson et al., 2013, p.145). In the actual business world, and even in a specific industry, there are prevailing patterns that dominate or are considered remarkable ways that influence the industry’s growth. For instance, in the case of a retail industry, the idea that Wal-Mart embraces a wider scale in order to provide remarkable lower costs for its offerings to its target market is a substantial competitive strategy because it is something that is hard to beat in the retailing industry. This strategy alone kills the opportunity of small-retailing firms in the market, because customers are getting high value at Wal-Mart. At some point, the opportunity of establishing more firms like Wal-Mart in the future may be hindered, because of the competitive strategy that this firm holds against its existing competitors and even probable market entrants in the future. The big scale that Wal-Mart is having at present prevents its industry from growing into a highly diversified point, but there are many other firms that are trying to embrace some changes and go for innovation to make a difference. In fact, this should be the case, because each key player will have to look forward to the prevailing moves that every organisation or competitor is doing or will be capable of initiating in the future. For instance, in the actual business, the key players are to anticipate the probable actions of the competitors and the same way applies in the game of chess where anticipation of the opponent’s move is necessary and so there is a need to study the opponent’s approach to the entire game (Courtney, 2001, p.165; Rao et al., 2009, p.339). In fact, in reality, Apple Incorporated, Wal-Mart and other renowned firms are the most common subjects of various studies and business case analyses in the hope of understanding the entire things that are truly going on in the business arena. Doing so will lead to the other important thoughts or ideas on how to specifically run a business and ensure the achievement of its probable success. Anticipating what the competitors would probably do in the future is a relevant move that is truly linked to the implementation of a strategy. In this way, there will be a sure way of initiating the most fundamental requirement of organisational success. The other aspect by which the game of chess can have relevant link to the actual business strategy is in line with decision-making, because here the decision maker will have to anticipate what the opponents will do next (Gillespie, 2013, p.286). Decision-making is a part of the business environment and even in the implementation of a strategy. Just like with the previous thought, decision-making will also have to require anticipating the things that will most likely to happen in the business environment in the future. In this way, the kind of decision that is relevant to the formulated strategy will further lead to the potential success of obtaining the corporate goals. However, in reality, there are also some changes that will have to be considered taking their place in the business environment. These changes are essential considerations prior to the formulation of the actual strategies. Business strategy and competition The game of chess is remarkably a form of competition at some point. One has to win and the other has to lose. Therefore, strategies are important prior to winning. In the actual business world, strategies are necessary in order to achieve goals or ensure for the win. There are some relevant changes that will need to be considered, just as there is a need to foresee the relevant changes of plan of the opponent in the game of chess. In reality, there are some prevailing changes in the business environment that will have to be taken into account in great detail. Changes in the environment are the primary precursors of the required initiation of new strategies (Clegg et al., 2011, p.16). There are many prevailing strategies found in the business world and these include new sophisticated strategies, merger and acquisition for the sake of expansion, increasing influence, market share and obtaining market dominance. In fact, strategy is a concept linked to how to achieve a firm’s or organisation’s objectives, which could be in forms like service strategy, branding strategy, acquisition strategy and other relevant strategies addressing the fundamental elements of a strategy which include arenas, vehicles, differentiators, staging, and economic logic (Hambrick and Fredrickson, 2001, p.48). These are just some of the most important points as to why there is a need to employ strategies. However, it is clear that the bottom line of these all, as already discussed earlier is the competition. Firms or organisations will have to go for being good to being great. Moving from good to great is an exemplification of a strategy in order for a certain company to be divergent from the prevailing patterns in its industry, but this should take place independently in order to successfully make a difference (Collins, 2001, p.6). If this condition cannot be met, then even if the Good-to-Great firms may be good, they must still be considered as not that great (Niendorf and Beck, 2008, p.6). Therefore, the prevailing conflict in strategy was found to be more than just the question of career politics and market competition, which is an argument that has substantial influence on Michael Foucault’s stand on the corporate strategy as a discourse with specific conditions of possibility (Knights and Morgan, 1991, p.251). The game of chess is under the condition of possibility. There are diverse possibilities of a winning move, but what seems to justify a good move is the actual influence of it in winning the game in the end. In the same way, a good strategy therefore is justified well when the player is winning the game. This is a remarkable point by which there might seem a little drawback of comparing the game of chess in the actual business strategy. For instance, the company performance is undermined by the problem called halo effect, by which the general impression can be the specific basis of the inferences (Rozenweig, 2007, p.7). In other words, if a company succeeds in business, experts or the common thought would be in line with the reasoning that such firm must have essentially established the best strategy. However, if anything goes wrong with the company like declining of its sales for instance, such firm must be automatically categorised under those with poor implementation of effective or sufficient strategies. There seems to be a significant concern of potential bias in here. This definitely eliminates the possibility that competition exists and there must be a potential winner or loser even if there is an excellent implementation of strategies as planned. In other words, the common view of success pertaining to the success of strategy cannot be potentially relied on at the optimum level. This is due to the fact that just like in the game of chess, even if there is a good strategy, competition exists and the opponent is always willing to change the plan in order to hit for the win. In the same way, in the business environment, competitors for the sake of competition will always be willing to change their strategies or plans. This significantly justifies the thought or argument of Clegg et al that changes in the environment are also remarkable considerations prior to the initiation of a business strategy. This also potentially enhances the point that an organisation or firm should create a unique strategy, one that is a competitive one, hard to emulate in order to satisfy the condition of taking the edge that is above any other could potentially possess. However, in the actual world, there are also other relevant factors that will have to be considered essential in order to succeed in the business strategy. For instance, in order for the strategy to work at its best, it must be inspiring and not boring, because majority of successful companies are not boring (Mintzberg et al., 2008, p.3). In other words, a strategy in the midst of a tough competition should remain inspiring, because it can sustain the zeal of achieving the remarkable set goals. In the same way, in the game of chess, the players must be inspired by their strategies in order to pursue them and if it is necessary, those should be the most important considerations of their future win. A strategy that cannot inspire the chess player is something that is not worth pursuing, because its impact cannot have a relevant contribution to the actual winning of the game. Therefore, aside from the competition itself, the strategies should be the remarkable source of inspiration for the achievement of goals as should be potentially found in both the context of the game of chess and the business strategy. Conclusion The work at hand just presented the significant connection of the analogy of the game of chess and the business strategy. Understanding what a business strategy is the main focus in the work at hand with remarkable inclusion of the concept of the game of chess which resembles the idea of a competition and the actual structure or environment of the business world. As found, the game of chess is a good analogy to aid someone in understanding the business strategy. The business strategy on the other hand is found to be a dependent action that will have to take into account the prevailing changes in the business environment that is influenced by the prevailing competition if there exists of it. References Carter, C., Clegg, S. T., and Kornberger, M. (2008) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Studying Strategy. London: SAGE. Clegg, S. R., Carter, C., Kornberger, M., and Schweitzer, J. (2011) Strategy: Theory and Practice. London: SAGE. Collins, J. (2001) Good to great. New York: Harper Collins. Courtney, H. (2001) 20/20 Foresight: Crafting Strategy in an Uncertain World. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Gillespie, A. (2013) Business Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hambrick, D. C., and Fredrickson, J. W. (2001) ‘Are you sure you have a strategy?’ The Academy of Management Executive 15(4), 48-59. Knights, D., and Morgan, M. (1991) ‘Corporate Strategy, Organizations, and Subjectivity: A Critique.’ Organization Studies 12(2), 251-273. Niendorf, B., and Beck, K. (2008) ‘Good to Great, or Just Good?’ Academy of Management Perspectives, 6-12. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., and Lampel, J. B. (2008) Strategy Bites Back. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Rao, C. A., Rao, B. P., and Sivaramakrishna, K. (2009) Strategic Management and Business Policy. New Delhi: Excel Books India. Rozenweig, P. (2007) ‘The halo effect, and other managerial delusions.’ Quarterly, 1, 77-85. Thomas, D. R. E. (1993) Business Sense: Exercising Management’s Five Freedoms. New York: Simon and Schuster. Williamson, D., Cooke, P., Jenkins, W., and Moreton, K. M. (2013) Strategic Management and Business Analysis. Burlington: Routledge. Read More