Search results

The following chapter describes a paradigm shift in military thinking and its practical application for business strategists. It describes the concept of maneuver theory. Originally designed as a war‐fighting doctrine based on the principles of speed, surprise, and economy of effort; the authors argue that maneuver theory has the inherent capability to provide the same successes for business strategists as it has for military strategists. Discusses similarities between military and business campaigns and then describes the difference between maneuver warfare versus conventional warfare. The techniques and lessons from the maneuver paradigm are then translated into the business context using a number of examples. Argues that the ongoing contests of wills, deployment of resources, and competitive behaviors seen on the business landscape are comparable with military campaigns. Argues that the application of maneuver techniques and principles will produce swift, economical, innovative, strategic, and sustainable business victories in an environment that is increasingly turbulent and unpredictable. Provides step‐by‐step guidelines for implementing a competitive philosophy that generates organizational excitement, commitment, energy, and innovation. Maneuver theory has spawned much discussion and debate, it has been misinterpreted, it has been touted as the solution to all military problems, and it has been vilified as a “bag of military Doritos – tasty and fun to munch but not very nutritious” (Bolger, 1993). This chapter describes how to operationalize a war‐fighting philosophy that until now has remained elusive in its application.

Presents a practical exploration of business manoeuvre theory, examining the application of a developing military war fighting doctrine and how this can be transferred to the business mindscape in order to influence future planning. Suggests that attackers have strategic advantage over defenders and describes decision processes and complementary systems designed to support aggressive attack. Argues that decision makers broaden their attention from a dual focus on product innovation and increased market share, to include processes and tactics aimed at undermining and destabilising a competitor’s C² (command and control). Also calls for an increase in the study of competitive behaviour and the study of decision processes and psychological operations (“psyops”) as they occur under time and resource constraints within the combative business environment.

The chapter starts with an observation from a selection of contemporary business situations indicating that B2B sales episodes are frequently quite complicated, multidimensional and long term. At the same time, models and theorizing about sales still tend to be highly inspired by the old seven steps of selling framework.

A grounded theory is reported where a broader view was taken. The study resulted in a conceptual framework where the core process was named “business maneuvering.” Complementary processes were also identified. These are judiciously managed and balanced a little differently each time during the process of doing business. In other words, these other activities are “maneuvered” (i.e., managed with dexterity and skill).

Four complementary processes were extracted. They all represented interrelated categories that describe various selling activities:

• (1)

  business standardization;

• (2)

  business fraternization;

• (3)

  personalization; and

• (4)

  probationary business rationalization.

business standardization;

business fraternization;

personalization; and

probationary business rationalization.

Those processes are described along with their relations and implications for the understanding of sales processes are drawn.

Emphasises the dangers of complacency in business thinking and of the risks associated with strategic decisions that are repetitive and predictable. Introduces a military decision making model termed manoeuvre warfare and its history, successes, and applications within a business context. Recounts some well‐known military and business decision making blunders and warns of the strategic implications of falling into the same flawed decision‐making traps. Concludes with arguments supporting aggressive strategies that exploit the elements of speed, surprise, and flexibility.

The third paper in the manoeuvre warfare series, describes a prescriptive approach for the organization's operationalisation of its strategic intent. It discusses the practical planning stages adapted from the military appreciation process. Termed the mission analysis process (MAP) this framework guides planners through the initial mission analysis, the development of a course of action (CoA), followed by a landscape analysis, execution, review, reorientation, and further action if deemed necessary. This paper argues from a military paradigm using both military and business as examples. This paper emphasises the need for porous, flexible and rapid planning processes, devolved decision‐making, and high levels of organizational capability, initiative, trust, and employee competence. Argues that the MAP framework facilitates organizational learning, a heightened sense of organizational participation and commitment, as well as improving business development between management levels and across the organization.

The metaphor of a poker game suggests the reality of international business as a competitive field in which players test their wits against each other, often using guile, and play at high levels of uncertainty. The game's rules are essentially simple but there is extensive room to maneuver. If business were actually conducted internationally with one set of clear rules used by all, then it would be like chess. A chess master can play against many others, given the highly structured nature of the game's processes. A poker master takes on a different kind of complexity, and in that, the reading of others’ minds, characters, behavior patterns, and interactions becomes crucial. The essential challenge of the global mindset is that, whereas you might think you are playing chess against several opponents, you are actually playing poker.

The major purpose of this paper is the development of a theoretical framework that can be used by corporate practitioners to understand the implicit parenting strategy of their company, assess its performance, and adjust it for improving the net corporate value creation.

In this paper, a three‐dimensional framework is developed that accounts for corporate‐to‐business and business‐to‐business interactions, value‐adding and value‐destroying activities, and strategic and operational levers. The framework is operationalized by assigning a broad set of individual activities to these levers.

The paper delivers a robust, systematic, and operational framework to assess the net benefits to a given business of being part of a corporate portfolio, and to identify and evaluate implicit parenting strategies in corporate practice. While previous studies mainly focused on broad parenting approaches with low granularity this framework now allows earlier observations to be substantiated, finer distinctions between the applied strategies to be drawn, and the core of superior value added approaches to be investigated.

The introduced framework can be used to analyze the origin and underlying drivers of conglomerate discounts and premia and thus enhance understanding of capital market valuation of multi‐business companies. The developed framework can also be the basis for the derivation of a typology of corporate parenting strategies. In this way, it can support practitioners in portfolio management – which was also the explicit motivation for the development of the original parenting advantage concept.

The outlined framework will facilitate the investigation of structural, strategic, and organizational roots of superior parenting strategies in corporate practice. It may be used to analyze performance differences of multi‐business companies that go beyond the degree of diversification and may finally contribute to solving the puzzle of the conglomerate discount.

The emergence of the knowledge economy and Industry 4.0 has prompted many firms to invest considerable resources into knowledge-based human resource management (HRM) practices and business analytics capabilities aimed at enhancing competitiveness. This paper aims to propose a conceptual model that examines the collective effects of knowledge-based HRM practices, business analytics capabilities and organizational agility on innovative performance using knowledge-based theory as a theoretical framework.

The present study empirically tested the above-said idea by surveying (n = 182) individuals with supervisory capacity in Jordanian 4- and 5-star hotels. The obtained data was analyzed using linear modeling and fuzzy sets (fsQCA) techniques.

Results from linear modeling revealed that knowledge-based HRM practices, business analytics and organizational agility are important antecedents for innovative performance. Conversely, findings from fsQCA revealed that organizational agility is a necessary and sufficient condition to achieve high innovative performance. While business analytics is a sufficient condition to achieve high innovative performance.

This study is among the first to unveil the linear and complimentary effects of knowledge-based HRM practices, business analytics capabilities and organizational agility on innovative performance. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.