The Flaw of the Game Metaphor

In my reading about strategy, I constantly encounter metaphors to games.  I'm fond of metaphors, and can see how a real-life situation in which multiple individuals are seeking to achieve the same goal is analogous to a physical or intellectual competition - but I'm also increasingly wary of the way in which the game metaphor is a Trojan horse and suspect that thinking in terms of this metaphor can be limiting and even debilitating.

The obvious flaw of the game metaphor is that a game is a construct.  A game an artificial situation that is defined, even contrived, to challenge players to succeed in pre-defined ways: to accomplish the goal that the game designer has provided according to the rules the designer has provided and using the pieces and space that the designer has provided.

This all works very well for an industry that is well defined and heavily regulated, and in which there is no room for innovation - because competitors have accepted a goal, must work with the known, and have little ability to play outside the rules that have been placed upon them by an external source.   But in an evolving marketplace, none of these things exist.

The goal of a business is variously defined: different organizations choose different goals to pursue and the rules change along the way.   A person starts a company because he recognizes there is a need among a large enough number of people that he can earn rewards (profit) by satisfying that need.  Or a person starts a company because he is fascinated by a thing (product or technology) and wishes to have the resources to perfect it, the profits of which are incidental or a necessary evil to achieving technical goals.   Or a person starts merely with a desire for profit and will do whatever it takes to gain it, which makes the object and the operations of little consequence.

The "rules" by which a business plays are also variously defined.  There are regulations that must be obeyed (or the penalties for disobedience accepted), common practices that can be followed, and even arbitrary restrictions that are placed upon oneself that, when considered, have no correspondence to any external requirements.   Ultimately, there are very few things that must be done a certain way, or at all, though one who accepts the game metaphor seems to search for rules, invent them where they don't exist, and obey them without question.

The resources available to a business are also not limited to the pieces and spaces defined by a designer, though this does not seem to be as widespread an issue as the goals and rules mentioned before.  A firm may acquire more facilities, personnel, equipment, and such and expand into different markets, whether segments of the existing market or untapped markets.   While all of this is possible, and is sometimes done, it is more common for firms to attempt to make the best of what they have, and to be reluctant to pursue any idea that requires them to acquire additional resources

My sense is that it is this metaphor of game that leads many to assume that the goal is fixed, the rules must be obeyed, and they must use the equipment that is provided.   There's nothing inherently wrong with this, and for a few firms it is entirely possible to plot a winning strategy by being more efficient and effective within a limited scope.

But at the same time, accepting these arbitrary restrictions prevents success: choosing a different goal, doing things others are not doing, and acquiring whatever resources are not common practices for established firms - though it does seem to me that they are common practices for the giant-killers, small and young firms that do things that the large and established ones will not.

And it is "will not" rather than "can not" because the only thing that prevents a large and established firm from being nimble is its willingness to do so.   Sticking to the original plan, pursuing the existing goal, following industry best practices, and refusing to make additional capital investments are characteristic of stagnant industries in which innovation is unknown.

So perhaps it is for the best that those firms that wish to be innovative throw away the rulebook, though it might be better still for them to recognize that the rulebook is a work of fiction, written by those who seek to define the terms of competition - whether to rig them in their own favor or merely to avoid the onerous task of thinking outside a defined and constrained system in which things are known and comfortable.