Military Strategy and Business Strategy - Essay Example

Military strategy and business strategy Student Name Tutor Course Date Military strategy and business strategy Introduction Enterprise need of business strategies are so much related to the reasons for the army’s need of military strategies, for instance, in providing direction and purpose, deploying resources through the most effective manner as well as coordinating the decisions made by various individuals. It is certain that both the concepts and theories applied in business strategy reflect their antecedents within the military strategies. As a result, various common concepts and the associated principles are shared between military and business strategies, although a distinction exists when it comes to identifying a strategy from tactics. In this case, strategy is considered as the general plan is used in deploying resources in order to establish the most favorable position, while a tactic is the scheme implemented on particular actions. Whereas, tactics are specifically concerned with the necessary maneuvers of winning battles, strategies are required for winning wars. Therefore, strategic decisions whether in the military or business fields share three main characteristics such as they are crucial, not easily reversible and involve the commitment of significant resources (Grant, 2008). Various principles of the military strategies have largely been applied to the business situations, for example, relative strengths of the offensive as well as defensive strategies, the roles of the graduated responses to any aggressive initiatives, benefits resulting from surprise, frontal assault outflanking merits, envelopment and attrition. However, the variations between business competition and the military conflict need to be recognized. This implies that the main objective of a war is often to defeat the caused enemy, while the aim of a business rivalry is considered to be seldom aggressive. Most of the business enterprises put more limitations to their respective competitive ambitions and seek for co-existence instead of involving in the acts of destruction of their competitors. The contemporary literature and the business sections of various studies are dominated with the tracts that tout to the adaptations of the military strategies as well as other analogies in order to guide businesses. For instance, Tsang (2000) examined how the C3I (command, communication, control and Information) doctrine of military need to be applied as a basis for all the corporations in managing their crises. He based his studies on the three contamination cases that was experienced by Perrier, Coca-Cola and Vita Soy as the best examples of how the C3I model was used in large corporations to effectively control and manage a clear and emerging danger. Hee (2007) carried out a study of the classic Indian epic about Bhagavad Gita in order to deprive the management strategies. The study indicates that Bhagavad Gita greatly stressed on self-control with a focus on the application of discipline in detachment from the fruits of labor, duty devotion as well as in perseverance. As a result, the major components in the context of business management that were identified include “the 5Cs of capital, connections, capability, commitment and communication” (p.84). Although the similarities between war and the business planning may seem to be superficially transferable, Talbot (2003) argues in disagree that not only in overt comparisons, but also provides a description of the subtle damage that can be caused by the military lexicon on the entire businesses. Talbot pointed out that most of the post industrial businesses are extremely less rigid and greatly command the control oriented with the need for less hierarchical structures as well as becoming more independent and creative employees. In addition, leaders in the contemporary world are required to show softer styles of leadership because the followers are most likely not to tolerate with the orders that are so much barked at them. On the other hand, with the reverse analogy of the business terminology that is applied by military may appear to be inappropriate. In most cases, the military uses the corporate terms in order to sanitize their reality of the warfare. For instance, the common military briefings make use of the term collateral damage to refer to the civilians who were previously killed that resulted also in the destruction of residential buildings. A consideration is made that when a given warfare is lowered to the corporate discussion of a return on investment, it becomes clear that the actual cost on conflict is either reduced or completely missed. A detailed discussion shows that true warriors would prefer to avoid the war to continuity it. However, generals in the arm chair based on the corporate terms may be tempted or consider to venture into a given conflict with the objective that in case the investment fails to deliver very sufficient returns, then the management can decide to write such an investment off and perceived as bad stock type of investment (Talbot, 2003). In comparing military and the business planning, a number of similarities become so evident since the involved plans entirely devised for victory to be achieved. Within the military plans, triumph may undertake imposition of the state of one nation to the other, physical seizure of some foreign assets and deterring attack. While in the contemporary business world, success may mean the acquisition of competitors, controlling of the market share loss and seizure of the targeted market. However, the underlying valuable assets that both military and the businesses really covet are basically the intelligence of their respective opponents. Additionally, war inevitably concerns with taking lives, property destruction, environmental degradation as well as extreme expenditure on very expensive equipments (Grant, 2008). As a result, majority of the enlightened generals often urge leaders under them to avoid horrors associated with wars, destruction and the risks that result from defeat as a way of seeking alternative means of accomplishing the national and international goals. The nature of various free enterprises involves undertaking risks, for instance, the board of directors, stockholders who are greedy among other forces largely push their corporate leaders into various jeopardizes such as engagement in increasing risk competition so as to benefit their stakeholders as well as the entire community without the immense physical dislocation that can be caused by the armed conflicts. This implies that it is very important for business students, military theorists and the corporate leaders to recognize the existing natural boarders of each other’s field of operations. A significant capability for both civilian and the military planning is the access to the targeted market information or incorporate into the military parlance and intelligence (Stone, 2011). McManus and Botten (2006) noted that an organization can conscientiously and very precisely emulate one of the numerous chic models of strategic planning that are accessible and still may fail due to lack of conducting some strategic surveillance. This suggests that a broad range of monitoring events both inside and outside a given corporation particularly those that have the likelihood of impacting the implementation of associated strategies should be considered. The existing similarities between war and the business planning are very many and well documented. However, the key of such similarities include understanding and considering the nature of a conflict as well as the intentions of the opponents, awareness of the involved battle grounds, the intimate connection that can be made with suppliers, staff and customers, knowledge of individual capabilities as well as deficits. The most significant distinction between military and the business strategic planning concerns the ultimate outcome of a certain conflict. When a given business conducts its operation, some economic utilities are generated and stakeholders, society and employees in general derive various benefits from it. On the other hand, the nature of organizational competition is normally regulated by the either national or international laws and in case disputes arises amongst the rivals, market place environmental conditions or the legal systems will involve in making some binding decisions on corporate life and death in a similar manner victory or defeat decisions will be made in military sectors. Studies indicate that introduction of war analogies into business environments seem to be complex and can arouse emotions as well as ethos that occurs in contrary to prevailing culture of business management. Therefore, the reach expansion of multinational businesses can turn out to be engines for generating wealth and peace (Hee, 2007). The formalized discussions on strategy or strategic theories are associated with acts of politics, war, as well as the military. In addition, business strategies is generally discussed and developed within the context of market competition, associating is with the struggle for the scarce resources. This implies that the objective of the aggressor organizations is to make improvements in its position in comparison with its competitors such as the defenders that can be some other organizations, suppliers, product distributors, or the customers, in this case competition is considered as the enemy. It can be noted that terms such as campaign, defeat, attack and battle are commonly used. This, certainly, is also applicable or the operating framework for the individuals, countries, families, alliances and some groups when they are formulating their political or the military strategy. Consequently, business and the marketing strategies are commonly associated with the political as well as military strategies. Contemporary studies indicate that both military and the business strategies have significant elements which are common. For instance, military strategies are basically formulated in order to win the emerging wars against the enemies by objectively undertaking analysis of the surrounding conditions. In addition, it involves choosing the best alternatives in mobilizing the entire forces that could be available in an effective manner. Conversely, business is formulated so as to cope with the business competition (Huffman, 2001). Military strategies are crucial in business strategy-making processes as a way of assessing the factors affecting business competition as well as the underlying causes for such factors prior to formulating organizational strategies. Setting up of broad objectives aimed at directing a given enterprise towards its general goals and planning on the most appropriate path that can enable the achievement of such goals are one of the examples that identify the similarities between military and the business strategies (Huffman, 2001). The Napoleonic strategy way of focusing the resources and attacking on the weak points based on the enemy can related to the niche strategy of companies that focuses resources on a specific part of the existing market. Furthermore, military strategies of the attack in accordance to the overwhelming speed greatly correspond to the prevailing fast response time of the business strategies. Similar to the availability of principles of war that are necessary in developing the military strategies, so do the business principles in various organizations that enable the development of various business strategies. For example, bias for the action can be related to the offensive and sticking to the knitting can associated to the concentration of a force or the efforts put in a strategy (McManus & Botten, 2006). Therefore, question such as how the military principle of unity command can be translated into the organizational activities of a product lifecycle becomes very important in understanding the similarities between military and businesses strategies. Modern life is based on battles, therefore, business people need to effectively follow the core military principles in order to achieve comparable outcomes or successive. In a similar case with the military generals, individuals who strive for their excellence, they consistently compete against the uncertain forces as well as turbulent environments. In business victory, most achievers learn on how the great military leaders clearly set their goals as well as coordinate the associated activities and develop their abilities to concentrate on the key targets. Both the military and business strategies should be adaptive to change as well as constantly be improved for successful achievement of the intended objectives. Various titles such as Guerrilla marketing and the Marketing Warfare are widespread with their military reference and their applications. Such applications have turned out to be more than just a metaphor or the allegories. In addition, a number of the military texts are increasingly becoming the relevant handbooks for the strategic planning particularly at corporate levels. Recent studies indicates that the nature of most business strategies are much related to the military strategies in the sense that they ditch one company against the other, marketing team against each other and products against products. An argument is made that since most of the business strategy literatures have advanced considerably mores faster than that of the military strategies, it becomes very sensible to reverse all the traditional business as the war metaphor (Weigley, 1977). Conclusion Various principles of the military strategies have largely been applied to the business situations, for example, relative strengths of the offensive as well as defensive strategies, the roles of the graduated responses to any aggressive initiatives, benefits resulting from surprise, frontal assault outflanking merits, envelopment and attrition. Contemporary literature and the business sections of various studies are dominated with the tracts that tout to the adaptations of the military strategies as well as other analogies in order to guide businesses. The existing similarities between war and the business planning are very many and well documented. Since modern life is based on battles, there is an implication that business people need to effectively follow the core military principles in order to achieve comparable outcomes or make their business successful. The mot significant distinction between military and the business strategic planning concerns the ultimate outcome of a certain conflict. Introduction of war analogies into business environments is very complex and can arouse emotions as well as ethos that occur in contrary to the prevailing culture of business management. Most achievers of business victory learn on how the great military leaders clearly set their goals as well as coordinate the associated activities and develop their abilities to concentrate on the key targets. Bibliography Grant, M. R., (2008). Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 6th Ed, Blackwell. Grant, M.R., (2008). Cases to Accompany Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 6th Ed. Blackwell. Hee, C. (2007). A holistic approach to business management: perspectives from the Bhagavad Gita. Singapore Management Review, 29(1), 73-84. Huffman, B. (2001). What makes a strategy brilliant? Business Horizons, 44(4), 13. McManus, J., & Botten, N. (2006). Competitive analysis: thinking beyond stage one. Management Services, 50(2), 10-15. Stone, J., (2011). Military Strategy: The Politics and Technique of War. London. Continuum Intl Pub Group Talbot, P. (2003). Corporate generals: the military metaphor of strategy. Irish Journal of Management, 24(2), 1-10. Tsang, A. (2000). Military doctrine in crisis management: three beverage contamination cases. Business Horizons. 3(5). Weigley, R.F., (1977). The American Way of War: A History of United States Military. Strategy and Policy. New York. Macmillan. Read More