Introduction

Business and Fighting

Business and fighting are two sides of the same coin.

This idea is hardly a novel notion; from the “business is war” motto that the aggressive corporate elite promoted in the 1980s to the multiple applications of Art of War, Sun Tzu’s classic fifth-century BC Chinese text, in the business sphere, the relationship between both worlds has been explored at length.

The simple reason for that similarity is that both business (understood as a commercial activity as much as a negotiation aimed at reaching an agreement) and fighting happen when two parties desire to exploit the same scarce resource; such competitiveness breeds conflict, which, in turn, needs to be resolved. Historically, during mankind’s most warring periods (and even nowadays), factions have fought for wealth, expansion, or predominance; similarly, in the modern economic era, companies and corporations contend for the consumer’s attention and share of wallet. The basic dynamics of conflict barely change from one to another; only the way they are applied varies.

In the fertile valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, where the first civilizations sprung up around the year 4,000 BC, settled human communities discovered this reality early on and engaged in a struggle to secure their survival, creating an ongoing status quo of competition. Often rivalries would be resolved via warfare, but, when possible, collaboration was the preferred solution and the deciding factor in this choice was cost: Which strategy was less taxing of resources? Was it better to negotiate and reach an agreement for a share of the total prize or engage the opponent militarily, suffering material and human losses in the process, in order to take it all?

On occasion, the line between fighting and business negotiation would be blurred. The Assyrian empire (2500 BC–605 BC) practiced an infamous scorched-earth policy when dealing with its adversaries, which (just as it happens with highly litigious companies nowadays) had less to do with human malice and more with a corporate-like strategy aimed at discouraging competitors and preventing similar conflicts in the future. Albeit with far more damaging cost in personal suffering, arson and pillaging were tools of negotiation for the ancient kings, just as the clauses of a contract are for modern enterprises.

But it is not only competitiveness that breeds conflict; personal interaction also creates friction between individuals. The collaboration required by human beings to found cities, expand empires, and build monuments in the ancient world was based on people working side by side and carried the same degree of stress and strains at the personal level that we see in offices and factories across the world today. The gripes and petty complaints about comrades and officers of a roman legionnaire walking Via Appia were probably not dissimilar to the ones a Taiwanese Marine or a City Hall accountant would voice nowadays.

This type of conflict also had to be resolved. First, because it was a violent age, by using violent means; but, as societies evolved, more and more conciliatory channels needed to be developed.

If human beings carry the capability to solve problems in both
manners—via practical, amicable means as much as violent, forceful
ones—should there not be, then, lessons that are common to both worlds, that is, business and fighting? The aim of this book is to add to our existing understanding by introducing fresh examples and ideas of how fighting and business mindsets cross over and, particularly, to offer a
new perspective into what creates effective actions and interactions in the corporate world based on the learning of a particular, highly refined type of fighting system: the martial arts.

Why the Martial Arts?

Although initially intermingled, societies, over time, formalized these abilities for business and fighting into established, distinct professions. Those skilled in negotiating, gaining advantage, and settling disputes in a noncombative manner moved into the business and diplomatic worlds. Those who sought to achieve the same results via the use of force entered the field of qualified soldiering.

But human nature is not so easily channeled, and neither are work and tasks so easily compartmentalized. Every individual has a complex, ambiguous nature, and every single person, regardless of one’s job role, engages daily in small acts of negotiation and conflict. As the writer ­Robert Heinlein put it:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.¹

In other words, all humans are in part warriors; or at least should be. But once professional fighting became the restricted field of a small dedicated army, civilians were reduced to finding other, less lethal venues to practice combat and so were born the nonmilitary martial arts.

The term “martial arts” carry a strong cultural baggage, and, although Europe has a long tradition of civilian fighting, from the ancient and brutal Greek pankration or renaissance quarterstaff dueling to the ubiquitous sport of boxing, the very name “martial arts” is normally identified as an Asian cultural expression. This may be due to the fact that although Italy, France, or England developed solid civilian martial traditions, for the most part, they let them fade away in the wake of the technological developments, which rendered the systems obsolete. China, Thailand, the Philippines, and Japan, on the other hand, managed to maintain the martial tradition unvarying and isolated from technological military advancements. It is not for this book to say which knowledge adjusted better to the flow of history but Southeast and East Asian martial arts seem to have latched onto the idea that their systems went beyond fighting efficiency and offered a necessary outlet for a human compulsion regardless of their practicality.

Because of what martial arts tell us about the embedding of a combative activity in civilian society and the harnessing of instrumental aggression, this book will, in order to explore the connections between businesses and fighting mentality, use as reference four different types of fighting systems:

• Two are styles of Japanese origin (one Chinese inspired and another autochthonous to the archipelago) and are included because of their cultural impact and popularity.
• One has an East Asian origin but has been pushed through a Western filter to a degree that has created a completely original composite.
• One is a modern amalgam of different styles, and its relevance has as much to do with its fighting efficiency as with its self-promotional and business acumen.