This document discusses the origins and traditional understanding of strategy as related to competition and war. It notes that business strategy is often framed similarly, focusing on beating and defeating competitors. However, the author argues that companies could change this approach and instead make competitors irrelevant by expanding the market space and adopting a new perspective that is not solely focused on winning versus others losing. The author believes companies have the ability to change this standard competitive behavior and reinforce cooperation rather than continual rivalry among competitors.

1. Can we change the way in which we are competing?
I presume that most of you know where Strategy comes from; if you’ll search in
Wikipedia, you will find the following – “Strategy (from Greek στρατηγία stratēgia, "art of
troop leader; office of general, command, generalship) is a high level plan to achieve one or more
goals under conditions of uncertainty. In the sense of the "art of the general", which included several
subsets of skills including "tactics", siege-craft, logistics etc., the term came into use in the 6th
century C.E. in East Roman terminology, and was translated into Western vernacular languages
only in the 18th century. From then until the 20th century, the word "strategy" came to denote "a
comprehensive way to try to pursue political ends, including the threat or actual use of force, in a
dialectic of wills" in a military conflict, in which both adversaries interact.” – And listen at what
Robert Austin Professor at Copenhagen Business School says:
Thus, strategy and war are correlated. It’s broadly used in business strategy terms like
beat the competition, even worst, kill the competition or price war. In the business
world it is not very important how good you are, how skillful you are, in doing your
products or services. The very important thing is: you (as company) have to win and all
the others (competitors) must lose. This is the ultimate goal, and if it is not possible to
win the war at list… survive.

2. It is matter of fact that the majority of the Company, no matter what size: mini cap, small
cap, maxi cap; all of them are thinking, almost hypnotically, to base their strategy on:
- Recognize in the industry/market they operate, the likeness and focus on being
the best within it (beat the competition).
- Look at their industry/market through the generally accepted point of view of
the strategic groups (such as fine dining Restaurants, family restaurant, fast
foods outlet, hawker centers) and fight to emerge in the strategic group they
play in.
- Concentrate on the same buyer group, which could be the purchaser (as the
industrial catering) or the normal consumer or the media influencer.
- Standardize the scope of products and services offered by their industry/market
likeness.
- Not challenging their industry/market’s functional or emotional orientation.
- Concentrate on the same point in time, most of the time on actual competitive
risks, in formulating strategy.
This is the standard behavior in which they compete, and this will reinforce the cycle
making stronger the competition (rivalry) among them.
Now the question is: Is it possible to change this behavior? Please, have a look at the
following article, which I deem very enlightening:
https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/2016/12/beyond-competitive-dynamics-from-
winner-take-all-to-lifting-all-
boats/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Beyond%20Compet
itive%20Dynamics%20Title&utm_campaign=ITA%20e-
news%20December%20Project%20Management%20Old%20Names
My answer is YES. I strongly believe that it is possible, instead of beating, killing the
competitors, to make them irrelevant. The market as the ocean is limitless, there is
space for everybody it is just matter of changing prospective.