Marketing warfare strategies are a type of strategies, used in business and marketing, that try to draw parallels between business and warfare, and then apply the principles of military strategy to business situations, with competing firms considered as analogous to sides in a military conflict, and market share considered as analogous to the territory which is being fought over. It is argued that, in mature, low-growth markets, and when real GDP growth is negative or low, business operates as a zero-sum game. One person’s gain is possible only at another person’s expense. Success depends on battling competitors for market share.
initiative
Mission-type tactics – Auftragstaktik
Mission-type tactics ( Auftragstaktik, mission command), have been a central component of the tactics of German armed forces since the 19th century. The term Auftragstaktik was coined by opponents of the development of mission-type tactics.
In mission-type tactics, the military commander gives their subordinate leaders a clearly defined goal (the mission), the forces needed to accomplish that goal and a time frame within which the goal must be reached. The subordinate leaders then implement the order independently. The subordinate leader is given, to a large extent, the planning initiative and a freedom in execution which allows a high-degree of flexibility at the Operational and Tactical levels of command. Mission-type Orders free the higher leadership from tactical details.
For the success of the mission-type tactics it is especially important that the subordinate leaders understand the intent of the orders and are given proper guidance and that they are trained so they can act independently. The success of the doctrine rests upon the receiver of orders understanding the intent of the issuer of the orders and acting to achieve their goal even if their actions violated other guidance or orders they had received. Clearly taking the risks of violating other previously expressed limitations as a routine step to achieving a mission is a behaviour most easily sustained in a particular type of innovative culture. That culture is often one associated today with elite units and not a whole army.
After the heavy defeat of the Prussians in the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt by Napoleon in 1806, the Prussians rethought their military approach and aimed to build a college of military capability, the General Staff, as a systemic counter to the individual genius that had so soundly beaten them. Napoleon fought a continual battle of manoeuvre or movement and throughout his career (at least until Spain) demonstrated his ability to defeat all comers by the greater flexibility of his formations and deployment. The fact that his troops were mainly conscripts showed that it was his organisation of them that must be superior. The institutionalization of excellence within the Prussian Army was to build this same flexibility as well as the other role of the General Staff Officer, which was to make sure each unit understood and performed their mission.
Auftragstaktik can be seen as a doctrine within which formal rules can be selectively suspended in order to overcome “friction”. Carl von Clausewitz stated that “Everything in war is very simple but the simplest thing is difficult”. Problems will occur with misplaced communications, troops going to the wrong location, delays caused by weather, etc., and it is the duty of the commander to do his best to overcome them. Auftragstaktik encourages commanders to exhibit initiative, flexibility and improvisation while in command. In what may be seen as surprising to some, Auftragstaktik empowers commanders to disobey orders and revise their effect as long as the intent of the commander is maintained.
İt is not a possibility to estimate whether the real condition on fields are going as they planned. Head office only can make assumptions how to react in the fog of war. If the information is out dated, giving decisions get harder. But it is possible that to give tasks or duty to subordinates and train them to give thier own decisions in diffucult occasion. Subordinates can give decisions and use initiaves on given task.
Crossing the rubicon
“Crossing the Rubicon” is a metaphor for deliberately proceeding past a point of no return. The phrase originates with Julius Caesar’s seizure of power in the Roman Republic in 49 BC. Roman generals were strictly forbidden to bring their troops into the home territory of the Republic in Italy. On 10 January, Caesar led his army across the Rubicon River, crossing from the province of Gaul into Italy. After this, if he did not triumph, he would be executed. Therefore the term “the Rubicon” is used as a synonym to the “point of no return”.
Wikipedia
There are certain steps have to be taken at right time and right place. Julius Caesar took an initiative even if he had less forces and it did pay off. If you hesisate your position may become more risky. So crossing the Rubicon means that there is no turning back from your decision. But quick decisions saves time. Time is once again our most valuable element in decision making. As our heroic leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk suggests that confront the enemy as soon as possible and ahead without looking at the size of your force. By doing that marching enemy immediately be stopped because they will hesisate and try to understand your strenght. By doing that you save time for reinforcements to come to support you and aşso ypu gather information about the enemy marching on to you. You shall be death but the important thing is the time that you have gained for reinforcements. One brave step seemed small but great advantages gained by this act.
Serdar Biçer
no win situations
While few of us live lives as exciting or dangerous as that of Captain Kirk, in our business and personal lives we all face no-win situations. These could include bosses who are impossible to work for, companies that are in a hopeless downward spiral, or jobs that are a terrible fit. The question that confronts us then becomes, “what course to take?”
There are three broad options: Retreat, wait, or advance.
Retreat
Many of us in the business world, trained as we are to always be driving hard, are reluctant to withdraw from a fight. However, as wise general Sun Tzu once said, “Therefore, the art of employing troops is that when the enemy occupies high ground, do not confront him; with his back resting on hills, do not oppose him.” I was in a job once in which my boss and I didn’t see eye-to-eye. The situation got increasingly negative and it became clear that it would not improve. And since I could read an org chart, I knew if there would be a winner, it wouldn’t be me. So I chose to “retreat” by moving to a different position with a better management team, one that could see and use the value of my skills as well as being on the same page as me in terms of work style and beliefs. To successfully retreat, one must accept that some situations are irredeemable and it’s a better use of your time and energy to move on to bigger and better things.
Wait
Another option, again difficult for those of us who are used to always working hard to make progress, is to wait for conditions to change for the better. Take the situation above; another option I could have opted for was to wait and see if the boss would move on to other things. It can also work in other situations, such as a business experiencing tough times, by waiting to see if things turn around. This can often be a viable approach, but one must be careful. By not taking a active approach (retreat or advance), you are at the mercy of events. You must perform due diligence to test the chances of things working out for the better. It’s also critical that you have a backup plan in case your delaying strategy fails.
Attempt to Advance
If, like Captain Kirk, you refuse to accept losing a no-win situation, you can put it all on the line to try and achieve victory. But, by definition, a no-win situation will take a tremendous amount of blood, sweat, and tears to conquer. You really need to think through, even if you do win, will it be worth the cost? And don’t forget, there’s a high probability you may lose, which could be devastating. Although Kirk was able to reprogram the Kobayashi Maru scenario so he would win, as a result he was put on academic suspension and forced to face a trial for his actions. It was only by chance that he saved his career; his trial was put off by an attack on a Federation planet, which started a war in which Kirk redeemed himself. Fortune may not favor you so well.
So these are your options. Consider the odds, time, effort and potential payoff, then choose what you think will work best for you. By doing so intelligently, the better are the chances are you will “live long and prosper.”
BY Mark McNeilly |
strategy and business 