Applying Military Strategy and Tactics to Business

Applying armed usefulnesss Strategy and Tactics to Business Preamble During the late 80s and un successionly 90s, much of the predominant management isminvolved directly applying classical stripes dodge to line of descent. cheer Tsuwas regularly quoted atBoard meetings andon W in all(prenominal) Streetand books give c beOn contendandLeadership Secrets of Attila the Hunwere among the just ab push through popular business books available. At the time, I wasnt a big subscriber to the idea that lessons from armed forces conquests and troubles could be readily enforce to making a business victorful.Perhaps it was that I couldnt tucker out my head just about morphing 1 of Sun Tsus m either principles of warf atomic number 18 into something that I could adopt as a leader or coach-and-four . . . Camp in towering places, facing the sun. Do non climb heightsin m ageing to fight. So much for mountain warfare. Sun Tsu,The Art of War Huh? Maybe it was that the black and w hite record of warfare, with real life death and destruction that make it difficult for me to draw comparisons with the gray-ness of business strategy andits in presentntly longer feedback loop.Or,it could give birth been beca subprogrammapping strategy directly to success or failure discounts the take account of the character of utiliseation. As a powerful beli constantly in the power of strong management, I believe that top-notch exercise lots trumps good strategy. As I see it, a good strategy poorly enforced will lose to a lesser strategy that is well up employ (that ought to elicit some strong opinions . . . ). For what invariably reasons I strugg guide with using centuries of military wisdom in conducting business in the past, my recent re-reading of excerpts from books bya fewof the great military historians B.H. Liddel Hart,Carl von Clausewitzand, of course, Sun Tsu, among others, has got me re- idea nigh the application of what armies and empires hold in regard ed about beating the crap out of the other kat. Of course, from the cheap seats, whatsoever single rouse read an excerpt from the writings by or about a great military strategist or tactician and practice up withtheir genuinely get way of life of applying it to their business. cat sleeps35th military aphorismis Encampments of the selfsame(prenominal) army should unendingly be formed so as to protect each other. One might apply this maxim to business by translating it as all of our crossways and services should be closely aligned and interconnected in some way, making it harder for our tilt to pick clear up whatever one convergence or service. Sounds reasonable. Microsoft at a lower placestandably does that with Office, an obviously successful implementation of this strategy. But what if I interpret this to mean that I should build walls around my current products or services, focusing my zip fastener on booking my current position instead of expanding sharp?Its easy to see how this interpretation of Napoleons maxim could openme up to failure as it did whenDECref employ to commit theVAXbehind. Both interpretations are reasonable, and one leads to a high likelihood of success and the other to a reasonable possibility of failure. The problem, as I see it, is that fifty-fifty students of military history have difficulty determining what strategy or tactic to apply a priori in a military applyment, let alone speckle adapting itto its business application. There are some(prenominal) illustrations in military history of a certain strategy being successful in one difference of opinion and failing miserably in another.Sure, its easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback, only when the data is access at you in real time, making the indemnify call on what military strategy to use in your business is difficult and potentially dangerous. So with the caveat of interpretation express above, Id like to presentmy summary of winning military strategies and tactics that businesses in todays initiation of diminishing sustainable differentiation displace use to help make them successful . . . Speed focusing Indirect Approaches In spread abroadigence (knowledge of whats going on) johnArguably, not dear(p)ly a complete list but, like I said earlier, its easy to map virtually any military strategy to any business strategy. My ending here is to present the most obvious ones (to me) and to use examples of the use of the jumpicularly military strategy inaction and show how it applies to business. My plan is to do a separate post for each one of these strategic areas to deflect this post from becoming exceedingly long and, probably, way too boring. graduation up, Speed . . . Speed There are very few examples of successful military campaigns waged slowly.Ameri croupe Civil War commonplaceNathan Bedford Forrest,one of the freshman students of mobile warfare,consistently get the cleanse of opposing sexual union generals even though he was approximately always out subjected and out-gunned. His strategy expedite. He is known for get to skirmishs days before the Union armies expected his arrival whimsical men and horses virtually 24 hours a day in lodge to create a surprise attack. Forrest rarely lost in conflict as a end of his use of speed. He called his strategy get there fustest sicwith the mostest. Roughly 75 years later, in 1939, the German armament started its sweep across Europe with its invasion of Poland. It moved so swiftly across the real that it caught other countries ill-prepared and unable to mobilize forces or infrastructure to defend themselves. The Germans use ofblitzkrieg, orlightning war, allowed them to stay mobile and to avoid becoming entrenched in one place as all the armies in WWI had. This strategy and, of course, the preparations to implement astrategy of speed,made the German army vastly superior to the other armies of Europe and, ultimately, more than than succe ssful in its sign engagements. corresponding armies, companies that stay flexible and move quickly hugely addition their likelihood of success. This is, of course, true in terms of markets getting products and services that mountain really want or take aim to market first is near alwaysawinning strategy but it whitethorn be even more important in terms of the culture it creates inside a friendship. When your employees are flexible and innovative, moving quickly to take on the next challenge, they will all be driving for success and well-prepared to quickly respond toany surprises that arise from the competitor.One of the reasons that speed works is that many companies are alarmed of it and thus, dont employ it as a strategy. It is, therefore, seeming that your controversy is afraid of speed. Or, at least, more afraid of it than you are. It feels much safer to move slowly, after all. But it isnt. Slow companies are exposed to attack from all directions and once attacked, o ften dont have the ability to defend themselves, let alone go on the offensive. Road kill. In my experience, speed has also shown its value in another diminutive way by minimizing the impact of doing errors.Any business is going to have some execution errors. If the business is wonk along, though, small sneaks in tactics can cause huge, unrecoverable problems. If the business is moving quickly, though, most execution errors become mere pick aparts in the road. The flexibility of the organization can absorb them and continue to move anterior with small metamorphoses in strategy or tactics. This, in fact, may be the greatest advantage of employing speed as a strategy. For business, as with the military, speed is your friend bread and butter the pedal to the metal.Next up . . . focus. Focus DuringNapoleonsearly campaigns, virtually all of which were successful, he employ a set of 78Maximsto hand him in battle (before he thought his armies were too big to be defeated). Maxi m XXIX stated When you have resolved to fight a battle, collect your whole force. Dispense with nothing. A hit pack sometimes decides the day. Napoleon believed that it was nearly impossible toknow what force, tactic or sub-strategy would determine the outcome of a specific battle.Therefore, he always pore all of his forces on the attainment of a single ending on winning the battle at hand. The hardly time he split his forces was to use flanking maneuvers where part of his force would attack the opponent from another direction. Even when this tactic was used, though, all of his forces were engaged inthesingle battle at hand with the common goal of winning that particular contest. He didnt turn over men in harbor and he didnt split his forces to fight in multiple, simultaneous engagements.The same cannot be saidfor the British during theAfrican Campaignin WWII The British, who had recognized the strategic importance of Africa well ahead of the Germans, committed large forces and many stores, gunsand planes to the region to make sure that it remained in their control. The Germans, although out-manned and out-gunned almost eradicated the British forces from Africa by taking advantage of a fundamental rachiticness in British military strategy to hold some forces in reserve during a battle just in case they postulate them later.This conservative British strategy of not committing all their energies to the task at handmeant thatthe Germans never had to engage the entire British force at any time and their inferiority of men and equipment didnt come into play and thus, they almost wrested control of the continent from the British with many fewer resources. During the civil war,George McClellan, first General in Chief of the Union Army, failed to convincingly defeat a much smaller and less-equipped cooperator force in many engagements.This included missing a huge opportunity to take the Confederate capital, Richmond, during the first year of the war and , therefore, passing up an opportunity to bring the war to a close early in its execution. McClellan almost never committed a large enough force to any engagement, choosing to leave behind many men to defend Washington (as commanded by Lincoln) and keepingeven more in reserve and disengaged from any particular battle. There are dozens of examples passim history of armies being defeated because forces were split for one reason or another.Whether to fight a battle or war on too many fronts orto hold forces in reserve, too little of the available resources were applied to get wind victory. more or less often, it appears that the cause of these errors was ego and/or ignorance. But sometimes the error lay in hardly underestimating the effort required to be successful in any one arena. With low barriers to entry inso many market segments these days, many companies assume that they can create any untried product or service without too much trouble or expense (lets build our own web br owser ). Funny enough, this might be true.You may be able to address any new problem that you see potential customers having. The problem is that while you can do anything, you simply cant do everything. Doing everything or, in fact, just doing multiple things, is the same as fighting a battle on multiple fronts its not likely that youll succeed unless you have loads-o-resources. Mostsmall companies (or groups at heart larger ones)dont, of course, and end up struggling when they lose their focuson their goal. Saying focused is particularly difficult for startups which, by their very nature, have little momentum behind what theyre doing and, thus, a lot of flexibility.Add to this the fact that the smart, hard-working people who found startups or join them near their inception are the frame of people that see opportunities all around them. A new, exciting market niche here weak competition there unfulfilled customer need somewhere else. Its natural for this type of individual in a startup environment tohave difficulty staying the course, wanting to jump at every opportunity they see. Focus not only involves trying not to bite off more than you can chew, but also not changing direction too frequently or haphazardly. In a startup, its oddly easy to get pulled in new irections daily as gross sales people feed back what theyre hearing, customers demand new functionality and advisors express their beliefs about what is right and wrong. And, since many startupscan in reality turn on a dime, they often do just that. Turning on that dime may be the right thing to do. But companies or groups that do so frequently, are doomed to getting overrun by the competition. Its hard to do things well if what your target is a moving one. This is not to say thatadjusting goals and direction should be avoided completely. Its often necessary and smart to do so. Such reassigns have to be made thoughtfully and carefully, though.Itshouldbe difficult to change your focus at any time . If it were easy, you werent focused enough. If you choose to make a change, just make sure that everyone makes that change and is aligned with the same, corporate goal. Dont split your forces, itll end in your defeat. Why fight with one arm trussed behind your back? Commit everyone and everything to your goal and try to minimize changes to that goal. Success is elusive enough, why debate with yourself by losing focus? Concentrate all you energy and time on your goal and, like anyconsolidated, focused military effort,youll optimize your chances for success.Disclaimer I am not now nor have I ever been a military strategist. Additionally, although Ive spent many years of my career creating, refining and attempting to lead others in the execution of business strategy, Im sure that some (likely, those closest to me) would also questionmy abilities as a business strategist. Indirect Approaches Classic, gentlemanly military strategy called for opposing forces to line up in a field opp osite one another, all participants in plain site, and then to wreak slaughter on each other.This type ofdirect, frontlet assault is rarely used any more unless one force has an overwhelming superiority over the other. Even then, it doesnt happen very often and when it does, its not without many surprises and casualties. Military leaders that historically adoptedless directly confrontational strategies or even complete verifying strategies soon found great success even when they were confronted by an opposite with superior forces. So, what does it mean to have anindirectstrategy? In military terms, indirect strategy involves struggle an enemy on his flanks (sides) or rear basically, where he oesnt expect it. Hannibal, the Carthaginian military commandantwho marched his army over the Pyrenees and Alps to attack the roman type Empire, kept the Roman army at utter (and often in retreat) on their own soil for more than a decade using indirect strategies. Among Hannibals many succ essful military strategies, he became knownfor engaging the enemy with weak force in the center of his formation and two hidden sets of strong troops that wrapped around the sides of the opposing force (flanking them), squeezing them from the sides and, sometimes the rear.While the Romans thought they were successfully attacking the weaker force in the center, they lost the battle as they were crushed from the sides. This indirect approach took the enemy by surprise and attacked it where it was weakest. Even the mighty Roman armies could not remove Hannibal from the Empire. That is, until they started using indirect approaches themselves. Like Hannibal did in so many major battles,Douglas MacArthur apply a master-stroke of indirect strategy to keep the UN Forces in South Korea from being pushed off the Korean peninsula at the beginning of the Korean War.A few months after the war started, the South Korean and UN forces had been pushed to the south-eastern end of the Korean peninsul a at Pusan Province. MacArthur proposed and black marketd an indirect attack behind the lines of the North Koreans, far north of Pusan, on Koreas horse opera shore. The amphibious attack surprised the North Koreans and cut the North Korean Army south of Inchon off from supplies and personnel, ultimately causing the collapse of the North Korean forces in southern Korea. As with military strategy, direct, frontal attacks against other companies in business rarely succeed.Unless your company is by far the largest in its business or has a strongly dominant sales channel, any direct attack against your competition is likely to fail. The old adage is that you need a 101 superiority over your competition to beat them head-to-head. My suck up is that unless youre a Microsoft (fill in your favorite large company in your favorite market here it used to be IBM for all examples), and, in Microsofts case, really only in operating systems and Office-like applications, its probably best to foc us on indirect approaches when taking on competition.So, rather than competing on features or performance, change the ground rules. Compete on price, distribution model, ease-of-use, accessibility, partnerships, integration, switching cost or similar. An example of this near and dear to my heart is the emergence of my first successful company, Viewlogic Systems (acquired by Synopsys, in 1997). One ofthe co-foundersof Viewlogic was Sal Carcia, who initially led marketing and sales for the company. Sal was (and Im sure still is) a brilliant marketing guy who had an innate sense for market dynamics and saw holes (read opportunities)in the market very clearly and accurately.In 1984, when we founded Viewlogic,EDA tools ( parcel tools for electronic Design Automation electronics CAD tools) were turnkey systems bundled withbig ironware. These systems were very expensive and most companies could only establish to buy one seat (one bundled unit) for every 10 to 20 engineers they employed. A ratio guaranteed to limit the productivity of the entire engineering group. Sals idea, which sounds so basic now, but keep in mind that PCs were new in 1981 and still pretty limited in 1984, was to bundle a completeEDA system with a PC for $10,000 per seat. About one tenth of what a competitors system sold for. 10K wasnt just a random, lower figure, it was what Sal saw as the maximum we could charge without requiring the engineering manager (the customer) to get sign-off from upper management for the purchase. So, as a result of Sals strategy, Viewlogic sold to the engineering manager who made more local and faster conclusions while our competition was selling to big corporate organizations with long sales cycle. Also, at $10K/seat. Engineering managers could equipeach their of engineers with theEDAtools they needed, resulting in more productive groups that then promoted the tools to the rest of the organization.In the end, most of Viewlogics tools were not revolutionary (some features were, of course, and we figured out how to mash a whole lotta functionality into 640KB of memory), but the forwarding was a good luckthrough, helping us reach a market previously unserved. As an added bonus, because of the anchor of hardware that the competition hauled with it, it couldnt come down to fight with us in our space until it rewrote most of its software to likewise run on a PC. So, in the end, Viewlogic never tried to win by bettering the competition at what they were good at.It took an indirect strategy of fighting the competition where it was weak and unprepared and unable to defend itself. This indirect approach was the key to Viewlogics initial success. Employing indirect strategies doesnt mean that you need to change your end goal. It simply means that you need to change the way you approach the battle to achieve it. Its much better to avoid being perceived as a threat to the big guys in the market or toescape their attention all together than it is to po und your chest and take them on head-to-head. Theyre bigger, stronger, have more resources and more customers.For the most part, they dont need to be better than you to kick your ass. Let your ego go be smart attack at the intersection of where your competition is weak and customers perceive value. Its not only abouthaving a betterproductor service, its about the whole package support, customer satisfaction, distribution, PR . . . everything. Direct strategies usually fail in business as they do in their military application. Dont become another bump in the road for your competition, use an indirect approach to catch them off-guard and unprepared to respond to your threat. Next up . . .Intelligence. Intelligence Among Websters definitions for intelligence, two primary ones directly apply to both military and business matters 1) you need to be smart or, at least, be able to think and, 2)you need to haveknowledge of what the enemy/competition knows and thinks. Main EntryinAtelAliAgen ce Pronunciation in-te-l&-j&n(t)s Functionnoun Etymology Middle English, from Middle French, from Latinintelligentia,fromintelligent-, intelligensintelligent The ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situationsalsothe skilled use of reason.The ability to apply knowledge to manipulate ones environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria. Information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an areaalsoan agency engaged in obtaining such information. In military engagements, intelligence is often more important than the size of the force, how well its armed and who it is led by. A perfect example of this is in the military strategies employed byMao Zedongas he led the Red Army in its 20+ year rebellion against theKuomintanggovernment in China.After the start of the rebellion, the Red Army, for the most part, got its butt kicked whenever and where-ever it engaged the vastly superior government army forces. For the most part, the Red Army was out-manned, had many fewer weapons and was isolated into parts of the country that made it difficult to get tactical advantage in widespread warfare. Recognizinghis deficiencies, Mao turned to strategies that involved dynamicly collecting intelligence about his opponent. He had spies throughout the government who gathered information about their plans and actions.Perhaps even more importantly, he designated soldiers dressed in civil clothing to be stationed throughout the country to monitor the movement of the governments troops and supplies. By gathering this information and extracting trends from it, he learned what his opponent was doing and, over time, still what type of moves that they made in response to his own. Ultimately, having this knowledge, Mao was able to gain the upper hand and to ultimately defeat the government troops, exiling Chiang Kai-Shek to mainland China in 1949.Prior to World War II, while most of the rest of the world was comparatively ignorant to the va lue of keeping secrets, well . . . secret, the Germans invested to a great extent in cryptography. The efforts of the German government and military agencies to make sure that discourses were secure resulted in the adoption oftheEnigma Cipher machine an electro-mechanical device that encoded and decoded messages. The German Navy, in particular, relied heavily on the secrecy of their communications and had the most complex Enigma machines and processes surrounding them.It took years for Germanys enemies to break the Enigma. The huge valuein breaking the code was well understood, though, and a concerted effort was attach to breakto do soas part of the strategy to defeat the Germans. At first the coating made headway, then the British took over the main effort. Through the work of a huge number of scientists and mathematicians, mostly stationed at the famousBletchley Parkin England, and a stolen Enigma machine here and there, the assort were able to read many of the top-secret mes sages being sent by the Germans.Using this information, the Allies were able to change their tactics and even much of their strategy in the battle of the Atlantic. Each action took on more significance with less effort. The knowledge ofwhat the enemy was going to dolet the Allies stay one step ahead and to focus their efforts on the singular end goal of winning battles, without having to spread their forces out too far. Now, Im not suggesting that you engage in any kind of industrial espionage. exclusively that knowing what your competition is up to is critical to your business or, at he very least, critical to how you run your business. Spies arent required. You just need to be aware. Your sales channel will be able to tell whats going on (if its not a completely automated channel) and anyone that engages with your customers will feel what the competition is doing if they listen well. If youre among the group of people that claims to have no competition WAKE UP Every business ha s at least one competitor, even if its the choice your customer has to keep doing what theyre doing.The infinitely low barriers to entry in virtually all product or service areas these days also guarantees that youll have more competitors in the near future if your target market has any real value. Theres simply no excuse for not knowing what your current and acclivitous competition is up to. This knowledge not only helps you differentiate your product or service right out of the gate, but also helps you keep your costs lower because you waste less time with a more focused approach. Of course, no business that just focuses on what their competitors are doing isgoing to be successful.True success can only come from using the other kind of intelligence that which only comesfrom using your head. In my experience (and Im at least as guilty as anyone Ive ever known) there are too-many knee-jerk reactions in business. Managers often make quick decisionsin a situation without broad know ledge of what is really going on. In an environment where everything is moving fast, its a natural mistake to make. Additionally, the fear of the consequences of not answering a challenge or looking like one is in control often encourages half-baked reactions.Every manager needs to keep in mind the value of looking before they leap. Or, as I like to think about it responding instead of reacting. The difference between responding and reacting is thinking one involves it, the other doesnt. I know, I know, this is where youre saying to yourself I dont have time for long, drawn-out planning sessions. My business is go, go, go and if I slow down, Im dead. In most cases, taking a step back, drawing some pictures on a white board, talk of the town to a few people or getting together with your team to ponder the paths ahead only involves hours or perhaps a few days.Notweeks and months. Of course, at times, it does take longer. In my experience, though, whatever it takes to make an sen sible (note that I say informed not perfect or correct or even low-risk) decision on how to respond to the challenge that you face is worthwhile and will save you loads of time and energy later. Think about the situation, at least a little, then move. Dont move slowly, but move deliberately. As with successful military campaigns, the more intelligence you have both kinds the more likely it is that youll set yourbusiness on the best possible path to success.Increased knowledge of whatyour competition is up to and, more importantly,considered thoughtput in to your overall strategy and to anyresponsetochanges improves your likelihood of success while helping to reduce effort that might be wasted in areas unnecessary or even unrelated to the optimal path of the business Next up, the final installment in this series Deception. Deception If youre like me, you immediately question how johncan and should be applied to business.In a business context, the concept of deception seems almost immoral or, at least, against the rules if not the legal ones, at least the ones understood as part of business decorum, civility or fair play. Who wants to win by slicker, after all? There is little concern forsuch concepts in modern warfare (historically, much of warfare was conducted under a code of ethics aside from the Geneva Convention rules, no such code exists today), however,where the goal is most often the physical destruction of the enemy. In battle, a commanders trickery and deception can easily represent the difference between victory and death.There are few better examples of this than the campaigns of Confederate GeneralThomas Jonathan Stonewall capital of Mississippiand his army during the Civil War in the US. Stonewall Jackson is widely considered as one most gifted tactical commanders in US history. His motto Mystify, take and Surprise. Early in the Civil War, during the infamousValley Campaign, Jackson found his Army outmanned, outgunned and often, surrounded . After an initial tactical defeat in a relatively small battle, Jacksons 17,000 troops soundly defeated the Unions 60,000 manArmy of the Potomac.He accomplished this feat by constantly strike the enemy, attacking its flanks, mouse behind its lines and appearing like his forces were larger than they actually were. During the campaign, Jackson marched his troops almost 650 miles in 48 days to defeat and cause the retreat of a Union Army that outmanned him almost 41. Trickery and illusion were his key tactics in the Valley Campaign and he used them frequently in successive victories during the war and until his death in battle (from friendly fire) in 1863. Like Jackson before him,Erwin Rommelwas a master of deception.Even though Rommel was primarily a tank commander relatively easy to detect and slow-moving he often got the upper hand on his enemies by sneaking his tanks through dense forests or via indirect routes. Rommel isbest knownfor his success during WWIIsNorth African Cam paignwhere he consistently defeated the better armed and staffed British Army. His understanding of how the British tank command worked led him to implement the most important tactic to his success during the campaign making the British believe that his forces were much greater than they were.This, in turn, caused theBritishto split their forces, leaving many tanks in reserve (they conservatively never wanted to riskalltheir tanks in battle) and gave Rommels smaller force a far better chance at success. Thedeception turned out to be the key that initiated his victories. Rommel implemented this by making his tanks appear to be in locations where they were not. He would frequently have trucks drive in circles throughout the day in one area. The clouds of dust they kicked up would be so extreme that the British assumed that there were huge tank convoys preparing to entrench themselves for battle at that location.In the mean time, Rommel, would move his active tank columns at night int o flanking positions around the British. Rommels ability to deceive the British let his smaller and weaker force win battles for years in the desert. In a business world that thrives on communication and rewards the speed and quantity of information available, its difficult to see how deception might be usedin a strategy leading to success. After all, anything you do to vitiate your competition might mislead your customer as well.There area fewuses of deception, however, that are commonly used and are blue-chip tools in the business strategy quiver Press releases as a defensive tool Most often successfully employed by medium to large companies, a me-too press release announcing that your company has or will have some product, feature or service that your competitor just launched can effectively slow your competitions sales process down until you actually have it. This is especially effective if you are already the perceived market leader in that particular segment.Switching costs are, generally, high and current customers want to believe that youll continue to deliver the best stuff. Of course, this wont hold your competition off forever, but it will allow you a bit of time to catch up. Appearing bigger than you are as an offensive tool Larger companies often prefer to purchase from found vendors. Of course, this depends on what you are selling and how much it costs, but it is generally true for anything even remotely mission critical or costing a lot.Giving the world the impression that your company is larger or better established than you are can only help you in this environment. This can be done through announce small companies generally do little-to-none, big companies do a lot large, highly visibledisplays at trade shows success stories from large customers focusing on implementation instead of just functions or features and so forth. Taking advantage of the reactionary nature of your competition Companies tend to react without thinking instead o f responding in a thoughtful, considered way.You can take advantage of this by misleading your competition, when appropriate, in an effort to waste their time or defocus them. In the most basic case, you can entice them to spend energy in areas that are outside your main focus, giving you more lead time when you introduce your own new product or service. Keep in mind that when you implement strategies like this, you dont get a bye on precise execution. You still have to execute well if you cant execute your companys strategy better than your competition can execute on the same strategy, no amount of deception will help you.Certainly, deception in the form of outright lying and cheating is a dead-end strategy. It might work out in the short term, but its going to get you in trouble in the long term. Defined a bit softer, though, as a method for manipulating or spinning reality (I know, Im cutting this a bit thin, but you get the idea), it is almost as powerful a tool in business as it is in warfare and is one that can be employed to increase your opportunities for success.