What is the "Science" of Strategy?

The practical science of strategy goes back in human history to Sun Tzu. Why a “science” instead of an “art” like the “art of war?” Because Sun Tzu didn’t describe it as an art. The Chinese character he used means “methods.” Historically, his work was the first expression of the idea we now call “the scientific method.”

The scientific method is a systematic approach to addressing a question or solving a problem. It is used by anyone wanting to find a reliably productive answer. The method starts when we observe something that raises a question. We then conduct background research, seeing what is currently known about this problem, specifically looking for people who know more than we do about the problem. From this research, we formulate a possible explanation, called a “hypothesis,” which means “a possible explanation.” The hypothesis must be testable so that contrary observations can falsify it. Then, testing is conducted. We design our tests that others can repeat to check our work. We collect information from our experience. From the results, we form a conclusion about the validity of our hypothesis or develop a better one, and communicate our results to others so they can use, refine and further test it.

It is a mistake to think that “science” is any privileged state of knowledge or group of people in any specific field. We should be, and probably are, using the scientific method to solve our everyday problems. We turn on a light, and it doesn’t work. What is wrong? We develop not one hypothesis, but a series of them that we can test. These form the steps in our troubleshooting. The switch didn’t connect? We flip the switch a few more times. No light. Did the lamp get unplugged? A check of the wall socket invalidates that. Did our power go out? We check another light, ideally in the same outlet. It works. We then check the light bulb. Eventually, we find a solution, even if it means buying a new lamp. The method is systematic, practical, and universal. It doesn’t develop answers from inside our heads. Our heads just find possibilities. The answer must be found through our interactions with the world.

The Science of Strategy

Any practical method of strategy follows a very similar set of steps. Once again, it is not a field of specific knowledge that is somehow removed from our everyday lives. The strategy that I write about redefines the basic strategic problem of living in human society as the need to improve our positions in the minds of others. It is based on the biological fact that, as mammals, our brains are wired to find happiness by improving our social relationships.

All strategy starts from where we are, our current position. We then find ways to advance using the equivalent of the scientific method. We start the process by listening to others, observing, collecting information, and looking for opportunities to improve our positions. We then hypothesize and aim at the best possible opportunity for which others can reward us. We make moves to explore that opportunity. When we think we are creating value for others, we make a claim to see if others will reward us. The claim can fail or succeed, and that information feeds into our next steps. The cycle starts again, looking for new ways to improve our position in the minds of others.

Our shared biological, social, and spiritual needs as human beings dictate the types of directions in which we seek to advance. Our preferences, however, like our strengths and weaknesses, are unique and entirely our own. Our differences provide the basis for our shared progress. Our positions are always unique at any given time. Nobody else can be exactly where we are now, offering what we can offer to those around us. We each hold a privileged place in the universe.

No Fixed State of Knowledge

When people say “trust the science,” they say “trust my community’s current state of knowledge.” Still, every state of knowledge is proven wrong for different groups at different times. Many times in my laughable past, I have looked down on the ignorance of others only to discover later that their ignorance was a more advanced understanding than my own special knowledge. I don’t mean all the times that I was just stupid. I mean all the times I was certain that I knew something only to find my certainty limited my knowledge. Let me give you two quick examples.

Back when we first started selling personal computers to the public in the late 1970s, new customers would call, complaining that the expensive computer they just bought and took home didn’t work. With experience, we learned the appropriate troubleshooting steps for identifying their problem. Those steps start with one question, “Is the computer plugged in?” That first test identified the source of most of our customers’ complaints. Back then, I thought my customers’ expectations that a computer could work without being plugged in was just stupid. Today, I realize that they weren’t foolish at all. People saw intuitively what I could not see: how computers should work. I couldn’t see that because I knew how computers did work, at least at the time. I don’t ever think today that my laptop should be plugged in except to recharge. Those ’ “unreasonable” expectations at the time were a good guide to future opportunities.

Another example came from my mother during the same period. She knew I worked in the computer business and thought she knew what computers did. From her knowledge, she thought that I could type any question into an Apple II or TRS80 computer, and it should be able to answer that question. Why? Because it was a computer. It should compute the answer. I tried to explain to her that a computer could only answer questions it had been programmed to answer. As it turns out, she was right and I was wrong. Now we have the ChatGPT. If I have a question, I just ask ChatGPT. The answer it gives me are not often right but they are always a useful starting point.

Conclusions

Our relationships with others are based on knowledge, what we know about the world, and what others know about us. This knowledge comes from years of working through problems together, in other words, from the scientific methods we use. It is important to recognize that this “science” does not create one, universal, stable state of knowledge except to the degree that most of us can work from the same assumptions.

There are eight billion people. We each have our own personal state of knowledge. Much of this knowledge is unique to us as individuals. It represents the legacy from all those relationships we have developed. We have all tested the ideas we rely upon, found them useful, and shared that knowledge with others who have helped us verify it. The people who surround us are more likely to know more about what is important in our lives than any book or universal oracle like ChatGPT.