I imagine that since the world is round, the human mind has tried to decipher what is the form of success. I wish there was a universal recipe that could be applied at all times and place. There is no such. Each circumstance is surrounded by variables that lead us to make decisions. They are the elections that we take that allow us to reach the goal or not. However, we know that what worked once, may not serve the next. I ever heard a military say that the great generals do not meet to discuss the rules of the strategies, rather, generate them. They develop plans that do not violate the rules and decide whether the time is appropriate to go to the offensive or stay defensive.
Strategic victories are achieved when the generals – linders – are capable of visualizing and assessing what is most convenient: defending the conquered terrain or going out to venture to new lands. The same goes for an entrepreneur, an executive, an entrepreneur who seeks to start a new project or launch a product or service. Commonly, the chosen alternative is in accordance with its personality and the philosophy of life with which he feels in accordance.
If the prevailing philosophy is the offensive, the impulse will be to go to the war to attack to get the market portion that you want to get: it will undertake against the competition and seek to overcome. On the contrary, if the perspective is defensive, the objective will be to contain the attacks and stop them. In these cases, philosophy dictates to avoid direct confrontations with competitors.
Obviously, both perspectives have advantages and disadvantages, as well as something more important: there are circumstances in which it is convenient to go out to attack and others in which there is no other to defend. There will be scenarios in which one path is better than the other. To do this, it is necessary to plan and put ourselves in strategic mode to achieve victory.
Both perspectives are antagonistic and it is necessary to know their characteristics:
Going offensive means planning the frontal attack. These are strategies that eminently include attacks, direct flanks, siege tactics or embolism for isolating, preference, emarque. They are very aggressive plans that tell the competition: I go for you and I want your piece of the market. This type of option is chosen when a big fish wants to eat a smaller one that is giving a can and is snatching market points. It is the military perspective that the largest army expires to the smallest.
Careful. In the corporate world the metaphor of David and Goliath is used. Sometimes the small fish does eat the larger one. There are times that luck smiles at least strong. When an aggressive strategy is adopted, it is necessary to plan and act exactly not to leave the opposing opportunity to react. The problem is that many times, large fish believe that the little ones will not know how to react and when they do they are stunned without knowing what other course take.
To plan a strategic victory from an aggressive perspective, it is necessary to avoid corporate fallacies. It is not true that the sponsor and blinda experience against any failure: think of Kodak the great giant that fell in a loud way after having enjoyed decades of great successes or how the small oriental cars are gaining market to Americans, even in their own territory. Be careful to fall into the trap of market fallacies: not the huge corporate bring them all with them, nor is it true that it is preferable to be more than better. Offensive strategies can be generating huge victories if they are executed correctly.
On the other hand are defensive strategies. It is about enduring with courage and resisting attacks, safeguarding our market. Flanqueo is done as a defense mechanism and can use the counteroffensive. It is about getting entrenched around the safeguard of the business. Like those who know that they face a more powerful rival, they expect the precise moment to attack and save strength, ” They refine the aim and become more efficient. When giving in the target, they leave the giant so affected that in a matter of anything, they will see him fall and lift the dust.
Of course there is another strategy: the great Chinese general Sun Tzu talked about her. He said the best battle is the one that does not fight. It is trying to plan to pass, to swim dead. There are wars in which the battlefield is not convenient to go out because it will not be convenient for shootings or Trojans. In these scenarios, sometimes it is better to retire, bridge, divide, make guerrillas, reduce. It is when the leader realizes that it is better to attend a niche instead of aspiring to attend the entire market, for example.
The aspiration that we all intend to achieve is to have a strategic victory. It is clear that we must be very naive to believe that success is achieved without having bitten the dust. Of course, on the way there are mistakes that we must correct, policies that we need to refine, lessons that we will have to learn. The important thing we must do is recognize the type of battlefield in which we are in order to glimpse the best strategy to achieve victory.
I mean that a strategic victory is not a serendipia or a circumstance daughter of chance. When exercising leadership, doubts will appear but you have to be faithful to what we pursue, know what we have in our assets and our duties, be very close to our consumer and listen to it, focus, use our resources and move forward with a firm and safe step. A strategic victory is planned according to the circumstances.
About the author:
Corner: (email protected)
Twitter: @CecyDuranMena
The opinions expressed are only the responsibility of their authors and are completely independent of the position and the editorial line of Forbes Mexico.
Follow business information and today in Forbes Mexico
