A economia não tem de ser um jogo de soma-nula

A propósito da falência da empresa de consultoria, Monitor, criada por Michael Porter recomendo a leitura deste artigo "What Killed Michael Porter's Monitor Group? The One Force That Really Matters" de Steve Denning.
.
Para começar, não creio que Steve Denning tenha razão na mensagem que atribui a Porter, julgo que Denning simplifica e acaba por caricaturar a mensagem de Porter. Basta pesquisar o que tenho escrito ao longo dos anos sobre as ideias de Porter para perceber:
.
Escreveu Denning:

"Why go through the hassle of actually designing and making better products and services, and offering steadily more value to customers and society, when the firm could simply position its business so that structural barriers ensured endless above-average profits?"

Escreveu Porter:

"How can you deliver a unique value to meet an important set of needs for an important set of customers?"

Prefiro esquecer a diatribe contra as ideias de Porter e concentrar-me em algumas ideias interessantes que Denning defende (e que, ao contrário do que escreveu, Porter também defendeu, basta pesquisar neste blogue). Muitos políticos e comentadores precisavam de perceber este conceito que se segue:

"By defining strategy as a matter of defeating the competition, Porter envisaged business as a zero-sum game. As he says in his 1979 HBR article, “The state of competition in an industry depends on five basic forces… The collective strength of these forces determines the ultimate profit potential of an industry.” For Porter, the ultimate profit potential of an industry is a finite fixed amount: the only question is who is going to get which share of it.(Moi ici: Este é o discurso dos proteccionistas, a riqueza capturada pelos chineses é a riqueza que os europeus não podem capturar... como se o bolo não pudesse crescer, como se a riqueza não tenha crescido e crescido e crescido com o comércio desde que os humanos dominaram o fogo)
.
Sound business is however unlike warfare or sports in that one company’s success does not require its rivals to fail. (Moi ici: A propósito desta frase que muito boa gente devia meter na cabeça, recordar estas palavras de Porter "Ao contrário do desporto ou da guerra, nos negócios, as empresas podem ganhar sem necessitarem de aniquilar os seus rivais.") Unlike competition in sports, every company can choose to invent its own game. A better analogy than war or sports is the performing arts. (Moi ici: Como seria diferente e muito mais saudável o debate sobre a produtividade e a competitividade se esta analogia fosse interiorizada... se Hilary Austen fosse mais lida, por exemplo) There can be many good singers or actors—each outstanding and successful in a distinctive way. Each finds and creates an audience. The more good performers there are, the more audiences grow and the arts flourish. What’s gone wrong here was Porter’s initial thought. The purpose of strategy—or business or business education—is not to defeat one’s rivals. (Moi ici: Algo que aprendi com Porter foi a fugir da competição perfeita, da guerra directa, "“Managers who think there is one best company and one best set of processes set themselves up for destructive competition. "The worst error is to compete with your competition on the same things," Porter said. "That only leads to escalation, which leads to lower prices or higher costs unless the competitor is inept." Companies should strive to be unique, he added. Managers should be asking, "How can you deliver a unique value to meet an important set of needs for an important set of customers?"") The purpose is business is to add value for customers and ultimately society."

Outra ideia interessante de Denning:

"The business reality of today is that the only safe place against the raging innovation is to join it. Instead of seeing business—and strategy and business education—as a matter of figuring out how to defeat one’s known rivals and protect oneself against competition through structural barriers, (Moi ici: Esta é a conversa e o pensamento dos que falam na necessidade de proteger os "campeões" nacionais, as empresas do regime) if a business is to survive, it must aim to add value to customers through continuous innovation and finding new ways of delighting its customers."

E acerca do futuro da consultoria sobre estratégia:

"Does strategy consulting have a future? When rightly conceived as the art of thinking through how companies can add value to customers–and ultimately society–through continuous innovation, strategy consulting has a bright future. The market is vast because most large firms are still 20th Century hierarchical bureaucracies that are focused on “the dumbest idea in the world”: shareholder value. They are very weak at innovation."

BTW, acreditar que a Monitor defendia a ideia de que existem "vantagens competitivas sustentáveis alicerçadas em betão" parece-me um bocado forte. Deste clássico e deste outro "The Geometry of Competition" de Bruce Chew o que retiro é que existem posicionamentos competitivos transitoriamente sustentáveis através de decisões que assentam em trade-offs difíceis de reverter... prometer alicerces de betão, não.