|
Bernard Starr, Ph.D.
May 13, 2004
Thinking and Stinking at the Harvard Business Review
The Harvard Business Review has been called “a leading
source in business thinking” and “the most influential
magazine in America.” In its media kit it describes
itself as “the source of the best new ideas for the
people who are creating, leading and transforming business.”
If the feature article, ”Five Killer Strategies for
Trouncing the Competition” by George Stalk Jr. and Rob
Lachenauer in the April 2004 issue, is charting the direction
for corporate America, it may be stinking more than thinking.
The “killer strategies” champion every conceivable
down and dirty technique for destroying competitors. Yes,
we know it’s a rough and tumble not for wimps fiercely
competitive world marketplace out there. But does that rule
out fairness, sharing, negotiation, “live and let live,”
or other civilized measures that transcend fanatical worship
at the temple of the holy buck? Most disturbing about this
article is the unrestrained endorsement of brutal combat with
no hint of compassion or sensitivity to the needs and aspirations
of others---or even their right to exist. It relishes the
aggressive language of football and the military posturing
of attack, and even deception. Not surprising, therefore,
that the article applauds an employee motivational campaign
they say was used by Southwest Airlines called “commencement
of hostilities.” In cities where Southwest Airlines
faced their toughest competition “employees came to
work wearing camouflage outfits and battle helmets.”
While this campaign was apparently initiated prior to 9/11,
is it a scenario we should now be cheering in this time of
terrorism when we are trying to beef up security, especially
at airports?
The only “restraint” evidenced is the sprinkling
of warnings that some of the recommended strategies may skirt
the edges of legality: “The hardball player ventures
closer to the boundary, whether it be established by law or
social conventions, than the competitors would ever dare.”
But even here one suspects they are winking rather than blinking.
Winning is not enough. You should “devastate rivals’
profit sanctuaries.” Must success be built on the annihilation
and ruins of others?
What about this douzey: “Plagiarize with pride.”
Don’t people get fired for that and ruin their careers?
To avoid the eleventh commandment –don’t get caught--
they shrewdly advise to only steal ideas that aren’t
“nailed down by a robust patent” (winking or blinking?).
If all of these recommendations aren’t grimy enough,
here’s the most troublesome one: “Deceive the
competition.” The model for this dark strategy is the
sports “fake” like the fake hand off in football.
The quarterback fakes a handoff to a running back. If successful
the entire defense goes for the runner who doesn’t have
the ball (the goods) leaving the quarterback with wide open
options for running or passing without the nuisance of defenders.
Applied to business, you announce services or products that
you don’t have to throw off your competition thus forcing
them to divert resources to engage the phantoms. To insure
that the “hardball state of mind” works you need
the final coup de grace of unleashing “massive and overwhelming
force.” Only then will you “have what it takes
to play hardball.” The forthright message with no regrets
and a take no prisoners philosophy is: Grab the buck by whatever
means and don’t look back, sideways, who you are steamrolling
over in you forward thrust—and certainly don’t
look in any mirrors. The more carnage the better, especially
if it fattens the coffers.
In fairness, there are many sound suggestions for improving
a business, developing focus, cutting costs, making bold and
swift adjustments to adapt to changing conditions, and vigilantly
rising to the challenges of a highly competitive global economy.
Too bad much of that is lost in the vicious overarching militarism
of the model. Where is concern for how this model of destructive
killer force will be perceived in the global marketplace of
a shrinking list of friends of America with widespread suspicion
about our motives, tactics and agendas. And what ever happened
to our principles of equality, and justice for all? I think
a bit more attention should be focused on the ”all.”
If the views on business tactics were limited to the authors
of the article we could just groan, shrug our shoulders and
walk away. But read the editor’s introduction to the
April issue of the Harvard Business Review and you will find
Thomas Stewart singing praises for “Hard Ball”
endorsing “employing massive and overwhelming force
until your adversary cedes the field to you.” He then
proudly boasts that the entire April issue is “a kick-ass
issue of HBR.” Is this the image of American business
that we should gleefully advertise and export to the world?
HARVARD: Is this what you call leading the way?
…………………………………………………
Bernard Starr, Ph.D. is a psychologist, journalist and college
professor. He has written commentary and op-ed articles for
the Scripps Howard News Service that have
appeared in newspapers throughout the United States, and he
hosted a commentary, “The Longevity Report,” on
WEVD-AM radio for seven years. He currently teaches psychology
at Marymount Manhattan College where he is also Co-Executive
Director of The Center for Learning and Living.
E-mail: LWThink@aol.com.
|
