- Email: [email protected]
Gambit declined
Business Horizons (2007) 50, 173–175
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
EDITORTS PERSPECTIVE
Gambit declined Catherine M. Dalton Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-1701, USA
Gambit: A maneuver, stratagem, or ploy, especially one used at an initial stage; an opening remark intended to secure an advantage for the speaker (http://www.thefreedictionary.com). The term gambit has several meanings. Associated with the game of chess, the word refers to an action whereby the opening player risks a minor chess piece in order to gain a longer term advantage. In another usage, it represents a remark intended to initiate a conversation, to the advantage of the individual making the statement. In either context, a gambit requires forethought and careful consideration of the long-term strategic goal. Well executed, a gambit can prove a powerful strategic maneuver; essentially, it entices the targeted individual to jump into the deep end of the pool with no swimming skills and no life preserver. Successful gambits create a reaction on which the deliverer can capitalize. Failure to consider the effects of a poorly played gambit, however, risks a notable failure, sometimes of a rather public nature. We frequently see gambits employed in the political arena. Office-seekers (and office-holders) lob controversial comments at opponents, with the intent of catching them off-guard and swaying public opinion away from the targeted candidates. Sadly, this is common in character assassinations of those running for political office.
E-mail address: [email protected]
Little wonder, then, that those who are most able to effectively hold public office are often least interested in assuming such responsibilities. Interestingly, those who bthrow down the gauntlet,Q especially in a public arena, sometimes find that the strategy backfires and rebounds on them. This is especially the case when the accusations lobbied against an opponent prove to be either untrue or partial truths. Moreover, those who cast the first stone, as we know from religious teachings, should ensure that they are, themselves, without blemish. Otherwise, they are likely to find the tables turned, with enhanced scrutiny directed their way. As experience has proven, few hold up well under the intense glare of the spotlight. Given the potential costs of a failed gambit, I am intrigued by the ubiquity in the usage of the tactic, especially in professional settings. Specifically, my interest is piqued by the poor consideration and implementation of gambits. As I have contemplated gambits, I am reminded of the dangers inherent in such strategic missteps. Despite an apparent lack of facility in effective usage, individuals, on occasion, elect to throw down the gauntlet. Often, however, attempts at engagement fall well short of the intended mark. While one might admire the courage to attempt a parley, one might also question the judgment of such engagements. If an individual is determined to attempt to engage another with the intent of gaining a competitive advantage, it seems that there are a few key strategic principles that should be considered
0007-6813/$ - see front matter © 2006 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2006.10.005
174 and, arguably, employed in order to maximize the chances of a successful gambit.
Courage of your convictions As in chess, when making the opening move, one needs to have the courage of one's convictions. You need to be sure of your approach and have some confidence that, once you have taken your hand off of the chess piece, you will have no regrets. Chess aficionados will appreciate that once a move is made, there is no going back. Mulligans (a.k.a. bdooversQ) are particular to golf, not chess. Part and parcel of this involves owning up to your gambit. That is, if you are certain enough of your position to engage in a gambit, then have the courage to make your move while looking your opponent in the eye. Failure to do so is akin to the behavior of a playground bully who lobs a rock at another kid and then immediately makes a run for it. If you feel justified in throwing the rock, at least have the courage to stand your ground and face the response. Hit and run is for cowards.
Know thy enemy Any basic strategy class will include coverage of one of the more fundamental principles: fully and fairly assessing the competition. By doing so, you are able to learn your competitors' strengths and weaknesses. Importantly, by marrying this knowledge with an honest assessment of one's own strengths and weaknesses, a determination can be made as to where competitive advantage might lie. To engage in a gambit absent such bcompetitorQ information risks losing any advantage from the outset, thus achieving quite the opposite result of that intended. Competitor analysis essentially involves assessing the blay of the landQ in order to avoid undetected dangers or pitfalls. I am reminded of a wonderful story my husband tells. He and two longtime friends were at a conference several years ago. They had set out to have dinner and then find a bar to visit and swap lies. One of his buddies spied a tavern in an out of the way place on a side street. He noted that it looked like a typical neighborhood bar and suggested that they go in for a drink. His other buddy sagely observed that while it did, in fact, look like a neighborhood bar, it was not their neighborhood. Point taken; drinks passed on.
There are battles and there are wars A crucially important aspect of effectively employing a gambit involves knowing when to throw down
EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE the gauntlet and when to btake a pass.Q Borrowing from military parlance, it entails knowing when to sacrifice a battle in order to win the war. Careful consideration of a gambit helps one maintain a longterm focus such that the ultimate goal is not sacrificed in pursuit of a shorter-term or less important goal. Take the case of NASCAR. A common strategy employed, especially in restrictor plate racing (where the cars remain tightly packed throughout the race, making it difficult to pass), is bump drafting. Inevitably, a driver or two will bump draft a bit too aggressively or in a turn instead of on the straightaway, sending a car into the wall. The wreck commonly creates secondary effects that result in a multiple car pile-up, which typically involves at least a top racer or two. In turn, these competitors lose track position and sustain body damage, and, in the worst case scenario, could be sufficiently smashed up enough to result in a DNF (did not finish). The initial reaction to being wrecked would, understandably, be retaliation. We have seen drivers respond in a myriad of ways, ranging from rather explicit hand gestures to throwing their helmets at offending cars and drivers to chasing down and wrecking whomever started the trouble. Here, however, restraint is best advised. The wrecked driver does not want to react in a manner that leads to sanctions which might jeopardize the chase for the Nextel Cup, the season's big prize. Sometimes, it is best to accept a battle-specific setback in order to remain on pace for winning the war.
Follow through, start to finish Another consideration in engaging someone with a gambit is the extent to which you are willing to commit to the elected course of action. In this regard, follow-through is everything. The only way to win a race is to cross the finish line first. Failure to complete the race disqualifies the attempt. Even worse, failure to commit to an action may result in punitive action. Consider the case of pitching in baseball. With a runner on base, once the pitcher begins the windup, failure to follow through and commit to the pitch will result in the umpire calling a balk. This call allows any base runners to advance one base. Should a runner be on third base, this could literally represent the difference between winning and losing the game, as a run is scored on the basis of a balk. The lesson here? Think carefully about undertaking a course of action to which you are not fully committed. In initiating a gambit, one is never certain of the reaction that will be generated. As importantly, why expend resources (e.g., time,
EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE energy, financial) if you are not prepared to see the gambit through to the endgame?
WhoTs in control? The bottom line when faced with a gambit is a decision as regards who is in control. While it may appear that the deliverer is squarely in charge, control ultimately resides with the individual at whom the gambit is directed. It is this person who has a choice as to how to respond. A successful gambit requires, at a minimum, some response; otherwise, it is essentially an bair ballQ that completely misses the mark.
175 By metaphorically becoming a pillow, the individual to whom a gambit is delivered can effectively ward off the punch. As anyone who has punched a pillow knows, the pillow yields, giving scant effect to the blow. In electing not to respond to a gambit, the game is effectively over. Winner by default: the defensive team, not the offensive team. Perhaps those who are wont to employ gambits will find some of these tips useful in consideration of whether to engage in the practice. While I enjoy responding to some gambits (as much for the sport of it as any other reason), I believe I will keep my simple and succinct response to most gambits at the ready: bgambit declined.Q
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
EDITORTS PERSPECTIVE
Gambit declined Catherine M. Dalton Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-1701, USA
Gambit: A maneuver, stratagem, or ploy, especially one used at an initial stage; an opening remark intended to secure an advantage for the speaker (http://www.thefreedictionary.com). The term gambit has several meanings. Associated with the game of chess, the word refers to an action whereby the opening player risks a minor chess piece in order to gain a longer term advantage. In another usage, it represents a remark intended to initiate a conversation, to the advantage of the individual making the statement. In either context, a gambit requires forethought and careful consideration of the long-term strategic goal. Well executed, a gambit can prove a powerful strategic maneuver; essentially, it entices the targeted individual to jump into the deep end of the pool with no swimming skills and no life preserver. Successful gambits create a reaction on which the deliverer can capitalize. Failure to consider the effects of a poorly played gambit, however, risks a notable failure, sometimes of a rather public nature. We frequently see gambits employed in the political arena. Office-seekers (and office-holders) lob controversial comments at opponents, with the intent of catching them off-guard and swaying public opinion away from the targeted candidates. Sadly, this is common in character assassinations of those running for political office.
E-mail address: [email protected]
Little wonder, then, that those who are most able to effectively hold public office are often least interested in assuming such responsibilities. Interestingly, those who bthrow down the gauntlet,Q especially in a public arena, sometimes find that the strategy backfires and rebounds on them. This is especially the case when the accusations lobbied against an opponent prove to be either untrue or partial truths. Moreover, those who cast the first stone, as we know from religious teachings, should ensure that they are, themselves, without blemish. Otherwise, they are likely to find the tables turned, with enhanced scrutiny directed their way. As experience has proven, few hold up well under the intense glare of the spotlight. Given the potential costs of a failed gambit, I am intrigued by the ubiquity in the usage of the tactic, especially in professional settings. Specifically, my interest is piqued by the poor consideration and implementation of gambits. As I have contemplated gambits, I am reminded of the dangers inherent in such strategic missteps. Despite an apparent lack of facility in effective usage, individuals, on occasion, elect to throw down the gauntlet. Often, however, attempts at engagement fall well short of the intended mark. While one might admire the courage to attempt a parley, one might also question the judgment of such engagements. If an individual is determined to attempt to engage another with the intent of gaining a competitive advantage, it seems that there are a few key strategic principles that should be considered
0007-6813/$ - see front matter © 2006 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2006.10.005
174 and, arguably, employed in order to maximize the chances of a successful gambit.
Courage of your convictions As in chess, when making the opening move, one needs to have the courage of one's convictions. You need to be sure of your approach and have some confidence that, once you have taken your hand off of the chess piece, you will have no regrets. Chess aficionados will appreciate that once a move is made, there is no going back. Mulligans (a.k.a. bdooversQ) are particular to golf, not chess. Part and parcel of this involves owning up to your gambit. That is, if you are certain enough of your position to engage in a gambit, then have the courage to make your move while looking your opponent in the eye. Failure to do so is akin to the behavior of a playground bully who lobs a rock at another kid and then immediately makes a run for it. If you feel justified in throwing the rock, at least have the courage to stand your ground and face the response. Hit and run is for cowards.
Know thy enemy Any basic strategy class will include coverage of one of the more fundamental principles: fully and fairly assessing the competition. By doing so, you are able to learn your competitors' strengths and weaknesses. Importantly, by marrying this knowledge with an honest assessment of one's own strengths and weaknesses, a determination can be made as to where competitive advantage might lie. To engage in a gambit absent such bcompetitorQ information risks losing any advantage from the outset, thus achieving quite the opposite result of that intended. Competitor analysis essentially involves assessing the blay of the landQ in order to avoid undetected dangers or pitfalls. I am reminded of a wonderful story my husband tells. He and two longtime friends were at a conference several years ago. They had set out to have dinner and then find a bar to visit and swap lies. One of his buddies spied a tavern in an out of the way place on a side street. He noted that it looked like a typical neighborhood bar and suggested that they go in for a drink. His other buddy sagely observed that while it did, in fact, look like a neighborhood bar, it was not their neighborhood. Point taken; drinks passed on.
There are battles and there are wars A crucially important aspect of effectively employing a gambit involves knowing when to throw down
EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE the gauntlet and when to btake a pass.Q Borrowing from military parlance, it entails knowing when to sacrifice a battle in order to win the war. Careful consideration of a gambit helps one maintain a longterm focus such that the ultimate goal is not sacrificed in pursuit of a shorter-term or less important goal. Take the case of NASCAR. A common strategy employed, especially in restrictor plate racing (where the cars remain tightly packed throughout the race, making it difficult to pass), is bump drafting. Inevitably, a driver or two will bump draft a bit too aggressively or in a turn instead of on the straightaway, sending a car into the wall. The wreck commonly creates secondary effects that result in a multiple car pile-up, which typically involves at least a top racer or two. In turn, these competitors lose track position and sustain body damage, and, in the worst case scenario, could be sufficiently smashed up enough to result in a DNF (did not finish). The initial reaction to being wrecked would, understandably, be retaliation. We have seen drivers respond in a myriad of ways, ranging from rather explicit hand gestures to throwing their helmets at offending cars and drivers to chasing down and wrecking whomever started the trouble. Here, however, restraint is best advised. The wrecked driver does not want to react in a manner that leads to sanctions which might jeopardize the chase for the Nextel Cup, the season's big prize. Sometimes, it is best to accept a battle-specific setback in order to remain on pace for winning the war.
Follow through, start to finish Another consideration in engaging someone with a gambit is the extent to which you are willing to commit to the elected course of action. In this regard, follow-through is everything. The only way to win a race is to cross the finish line first. Failure to complete the race disqualifies the attempt. Even worse, failure to commit to an action may result in punitive action. Consider the case of pitching in baseball. With a runner on base, once the pitcher begins the windup, failure to follow through and commit to the pitch will result in the umpire calling a balk. This call allows any base runners to advance one base. Should a runner be on third base, this could literally represent the difference between winning and losing the game, as a run is scored on the basis of a balk. The lesson here? Think carefully about undertaking a course of action to which you are not fully committed. In initiating a gambit, one is never certain of the reaction that will be generated. As importantly, why expend resources (e.g., time,
EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE energy, financial) if you are not prepared to see the gambit through to the endgame?
WhoTs in control? The bottom line when faced with a gambit is a decision as regards who is in control. While it may appear that the deliverer is squarely in charge, control ultimately resides with the individual at whom the gambit is directed. It is this person who has a choice as to how to respond. A successful gambit requires, at a minimum, some response; otherwise, it is essentially an bair ballQ that completely misses the mark.
175 By metaphorically becoming a pillow, the individual to whom a gambit is delivered can effectively ward off the punch. As anyone who has punched a pillow knows, the pillow yields, giving scant effect to the blow. In electing not to respond to a gambit, the game is effectively over. Winner by default: the defensive team, not the offensive team. Perhaps those who are wont to employ gambits will find some of these tips useful in consideration of whether to engage in the practice. While I enjoy responding to some gambits (as much for the sport of it as any other reason), I believe I will keep my simple and succinct response to most gambits at the ready: bgambit declined.Q