The strength of strategy

And the strategy of strength

Is there strength without strategy? Can you be strong and yet have no basic, bottomline orientation toward success? Or is strength without strategy a temporary condition that precedes the fall?

I’ve been thinking a lot about Stalin lately. Specifically, the comment usually attributed to him that “quantity has a quality all its own.” The value in size. At a certain point, “Hulk smash.” Bigger actors have advantages and can afford to play them. Those advantages can be seen in several ways.

In some cases a larger actor can simply lock out a smaller player. For example, think of the MLB or NFL not allowing smaller players (in those cases, alternate leagues that never seem to get off the ground). Or Facebook gobbling up budding rivals.

Second, larger actors can afford to grind down opponents with sheer size. This isn’t always pretty or precise, but the Union Army in 1864 surely qualifies, as does the Allies at the end of the Second World War when American production levels ramped up off the charts.

Third, and maybe most important, they can just punch opponents out head-to-head. I’ve read that some theorists don’t put much stock in the strategy of the strong. But I disagree. The strong must have strategy just as the weak. The strong may have more chips at the table, and can therefore afford more losses, but they stand to lose the same as all other players at the table—which is to say—everything.

Strategy for the weaker player tends to get better press/coverage because it is naturally more eye-catching. It’s that old David versus Goliath storyline. David is always the good guy and Goliath is perpetually the baddie.

Is it better to be stronger with a subpar strategy or weaker with a super strategy?

It depends on the case, the competition, and the potential consequences.

People point to the Oakland A’s of the “Moneyball” era. They had a better orientation toward success, and picked players that collectively manufactured better results and more runs as opposed to players that happened to look the part of a pro-ball player.

The A’s won a lot but did not win a World Series then. Their superior strategy took them far but not all the way. That fact is likely most attributable to the nature of the competition and not the gap they definitely put on their competition.

What is the proper relationship between strategy and an actor’s strength?

Grrrr. This one is tough. The greater the strength gap, the greater the strategy gap has to be to counter act? Maybe like physics, there’s a law of conservation at play, where a concept as ephemeral as strategy can supplant physical strength?

I don’t know. When I wrote my dissertation on competing supreme military commanders, I was struck by the fact that, in the end, being right made might. (Opposite of the way we normally phrase that slogan.) The strategist that made the better decisions won, and by winning changed their physical circumstances.

Being right alone doesn’t guarantee victory…the real issue is “how much might is being right worth?”…but being right certainly registers an impact.