Science of Strategy Institute

Here is an interesting article about research into human behavior in competition, but like most academic takes on strategy, it confuses violence with competition. The results of such studies can be interpreted both more usefully and more consistently within the science of strategy instead of to promote a particular professor's (or article writer's) prejudices.

Strategy teaches us to adjust and leverage change. No strategy can stop the pain of change. The illusion is that the government or anyone can "freeze" the status quo so that change won't hurt anyone at any time.

This weekend, we hope to finish moving all past Strategy Journal articles to the Institute membership site. In the past, just members of the Strategy School have had access to the Journal and its article archive. In the future, all Institute members will have access. Associate members will have access to all current articles. Full members will have access to the complete archives.

In my seminars, I point out that as each advance of a position creates a new set of challenges. When our dreams come true, we don't find Nirvana, but a new set of goals, a new mission. Even when you win the highest office in the land, the Presidency, the job is always just beginning. Obama now realizes this as he gets ready to assume office. Each competitive ground has its own rules. In the case of the US Presidency, the rule is that you are failure as president unless you are reelected.

Everyone knows about the strategic need for speed. 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu wrote that the best time to move is while your opponent is still planning, perhaps the first statement about how strategy favors action over planning.

Though Sun Tzu teaches winning without conflict, he did teach the need to compete directly for resources. Resources that you take from your opponent are worth many times the resources your get on your own. For example, in an election you can invest your efforts one of two ways: by getting more of your voters to the polls or by taking voters away from your opponent. The math is simple: votes from your voters are worth one in the margin of victory, but votes from your opponent's voters are worth two: the vote you gain and the vote your opponent loses.

One of the most basic principle in strategy is that there is a critical difference between actions and words. Both words and actions can be misleading, but actions speak louder than words for a simple reason: all actions have costs. Words are cheap. Nothing is more dangerous than basing our actions on the words of others when others have an incentive to mislead us in order to get us to do what they want.

You can now access our site via your phone or other mobile device.  Just access using the domain name, ScienceOfStrategy.mobi instead of ScienceOfStrategy.com or .org. You get access to all our content and features, but in a single column format that should work fine on most mobile browsers.

As we approach the end of the election cycle, I wanted to do a quick look back that the presidential race and its dynamics from the perspective of what it can teach us about good strategy. I could wait until the race is decided, but I don't want my perspective to be too skewed by the outcome alone, which is as likely to demonstrate a lack of strategy on one side than the success of strategy on the other.

The documents stored under this page are under review as Institute Policy.