On the theme of opportunism and evolution that I began well below, here's an ephiphany I had this morning. Again: look out HBR.
I think that the fundamental problem with strategy and strategists in business, by and large, is that they are like the "Irishman who brought a knife to a gunfight." [Hey, we don't make this stuff up: just repeat what we've heard. Ed.] By which I mean most strategists, along with the gurus and other authors on the subject, make their prescriptions and operate within implicit assumptions and metaphors that may not be operative.
The acceleration of market cycles, technological development, and so forth may have gone a long way to proving that what we perceive -- because we're taught and devevloped on the job this way -- as a finite game may in fact be an infinite game. Within the framework defined by James Carse, a finite game is one in which there are rules, a fixed time of play, and a winner/loser. An infinite game is one in which there are no fixed rules, the game continues until all participants choose to end it, and there are no winners save those who persist to continue play. Look around you: business is a finite game. At least that's what we're led to believe; it's what is rewarded and punished. Look deeper. I am.
First, the reality of business, such as the continual change and evolution, the fact that the truly successful people and businesses are those that don't just bend the rules but make their own, etc., suggests that business may in fact be an infinite game perpetuated as a finite game (which are easier to understand for us Occidentals). Second, the metaphors we choose, such as the military/war metaphor that permeates business (we "capture" and "target" markets, go "head to head" with competitors, "flank" them, etc.) implies the finite game. It's also a misguided metaphor, but let's not even go there yet. Anyway, there is more and the essay is forthcoming. If HBR won't take it, it'll be here for you three anyway.
Think about it.