Discussion: View Thread

Expand all | Collapse all

a definition of competition

  • 1.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-05-2011 11:22
    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows: "Competition
    (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain
    another firm?s prospects for achieving its goals." The editor rejected this
    definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or
    "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?


  • 2.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 06:01
    Is the implication, then, that competition is not present when someone engages in sabotage? Because sabotage is anti-competitive,competition must be present between the parties. If all "unethical" behaviour were precluded - by definition - from competition, how could we have "unfair competition"?

    Hope this helps.

    Best wishes,


    Donald Nordberg
    Senior Lecturer in Strategy
    d.nordberg@westminster.ac.uk

    Westminster Business School
    University of Westminster
    35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, United Kingdom

    Corporate Governance: Principles and Issues, Sage Publications

    ________________________________________
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Aime Heene [aime.heene@UGENT.BE]
    Sent: 05 December 2011 16:21
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: a definition of competition

    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows: "Competition
    (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain
    another firm’s prospects for achieving its goals." The editor rejected this
    definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or
    "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?
    --
    The University of Westminster is a charity and a company limited by
    guarantee. Registration number: 977818 England. Registered Office:
    309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK.


  • 3.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 07:41
    Why should our definition of competition assert the phenomenon is fair
    or ethical, by default?

    If/when a player cheats do we then consider the context no longer
    competitive? Or are we more likely to see such behavior in competitive
    contexts, if not even as a result of (triggered by) competition.

    It would seem more appropriate to define competition quite broadly and
    then use qualifiers (e.g., legally fair competition) to constrain or
    more clearly describe the specific sort of competition of interest.

    Particularly given that what is "fair" or "ethical" is rather
    constructed by formal and/or informal institutions.


    David Touve

    On Dec 6, 2011, at 5:49, Aime Heene <aime.heene@ugent.be> wrote:

    > I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows: "Competition
    > (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain
    > another firm�s prospects for achieving its goals." The editor rejected this
    > definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such as "sabotage".
    > Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or
    > "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?


  • 4.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 08:31
    Well, I must say the editor opened quite a can of worms. This gets to the
    root of the problem with "teaching" ethics. Whose ethics? What's ethical?
    And what of competition in a global context. One firm's unethical is another
    country's best practices. Bribery - acceptable in this part of the world!
    Child labor - socially acceptable in that country! Are we not competing in
    ALL those contexts? To casually remove unethical behavior in any definition
    of competition is "ivory tower" but quite unrealistic.




    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
    On Behalf Of Aime Heene
    Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:22 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: a definition of competition

    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows:
    "Competition (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that
    constrain another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." The editor
    rejected this definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such
    as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or
    "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?
    -----
    No virus found in this message.
    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2102/4659 - Release Date: 12/05/11


  • 5.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 10:18
    It seems fairly clear, as others have suggested, that the editor's comments leave something to be desired. I would say they are a bit under informed and ought to be challenged, nicely of course.

    I however would think the definition you suggest: "Competition (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." leaves out another possibility in that competitors do group together to some extent in some areas with agreed upon joint strategies. These might include collusion at various levels (illegal in some areas in the US with notable exceptions in sports and agriculture but legal in some international arenas such as OPEC). They might also include technology agreements in an industry to actually lessen competition by toning down environmental dynamism. Some of this might be seen as competition group to group and some might be seen as competition against other stakeholders who may be impeding success/profitability, including the consumer.

    Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
    Strategic Management
    326 Framptom Hall
    College of Business
    Frostburg State University
    101 Braddock Road
    Frostburg, MD 21532
    tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
    301-687-4419 office
    301-687-4380 fax
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" Charles Darwin

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Donald Nordberg
    Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 6:01 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: a definition of competition

    Is the implication, then, that competition is not present when someone engages in sabotage? Because sabotage is anti-competitive,competition must be present between the parties. If all "unethical" behaviour were precluded - by definition - from competition, how could we have "unfair competition"?

    Hope this helps.

    Best wishes,


    Donald Nordberg
    Senior Lecturer in Strategy
    d.nordberg@westminster.ac.uk

    Westminster Business School
    University of Westminster
    35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, United Kingdom

    Corporate Governance: Principles and Issues, Sage Publications

    ________________________________________
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Aime Heene [aime.heene@UGENT.BE]
    Sent: 05 December 2011 16:21
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: a definition of competition

    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows: "Competition (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." The editor rejected this definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?
    --
    The University of Westminster is a charity and a company limited by guarantee. Registration number: 977818 England. Registered Office:
    309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK.


  • 6.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 10:18
    Those who want to pursue this set of questions should look at the syllabus for the required Leadership and Corporate Accountability course at HBS. It is designed with precisely the question in mind of ethical vs. legal vs. common practice in a global environment.

    Professor Joseph L. Bower, Baker Foundation Professor of Business Administration
    Harvard Business School , Morgan Hall 467 Soldiers Field Station, Boston, MA 02163
    617-495-6282


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Dr Rogers
    Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 8:31 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: a definition of competition

    Well, I must say the editor opened quite a can of worms. This gets to the root of the problem with "teaching" ethics. Whose ethics? What's ethical?
    And what of competition in a global context. One firm's unethical is another country's best practices. Bribery - acceptable in this part of the world!
    Child labor - socially acceptable in that country! Are we not competing in ALL those contexts? To casually remove unethical behavior in any definition of competition is "ivory tower" but quite unrealistic.




    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
    On Behalf Of Aime Heene
    Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:22 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: a definition of competition

    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows:
    "Competition (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." The editor rejected this definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?
    -----
    No virus found in this message.
    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2102/4659 - Release Date: 12/05/11


  • 7.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 11:28
    May be a visit to the economics literature would help. For economists,
    competition exists when firms are caught in homogenous markets
    (undifferentiated products/services and undifferentiated customers) with
    little or no information asymmetry, entry and exit barriers. The
    essence of strategy is moving away from these markets, creating
    heterogeneity in products/services and customers and embedding
    information asymmetry and entry/exit barrier costs in the exchange
    process.

    When looked at from this perspective, the editors' concerns become moot
    because there does not have to be any amoral or nefarious activity for
    competition to exist. Indeed, when such activities add no value to the
    firm, it is acting against its own self-interest and hence may
    considered irrational. May be we need to remind these editors that our
    job as academics is not to institute morality because where would they
    draw the line? Would reducing production levels and selling in special
    markets that are unavailable to my competitors be immoral or sabotage?
    My competitors may consider it so.

    Greetings.

    Vincent Amanor-Boadu

    _______________________________________________________
    Vincent Amanor-Boadu, PhD
    Dept. of Agricultural Economics
    306 Waters Hall
    Kansas State University
    Manhattan, KS 66506
    Tel.: 785-532-3520
    Email: Vincent@ksu.edu





    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List
    [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Sigerstad
    Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:18 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: a definition of competition

    It seems fairly clear, as others have suggested, that the editor's
    comments leave something to be desired. I would say they are a bit
    under informed and ought to be challenged, nicely of course.

    I however would think the definition you suggest: "Competition (or
    rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain
    another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." leaves out another
    possibility in that competitors do group together to some extent in some
    areas with agreed upon joint strategies. These might include collusion
    at various levels (illegal in some areas in the US with notable
    exceptions in sports and agriculture but legal in some international
    arenas such as OPEC). They might also include technology agreements in
    an industry to actually lessen competition by toning down environmental
    dynamism. Some of this might be seen as competition group to group and
    some might be seen as competition against other stakeholders who may be
    impeding success/profitability, including the consumer.

    Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
    Strategic Management
    326 Framptom Hall
    College of Business
    Frostburg State University
    101 Braddock Road
    Frostburg, MD 21532
    tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
    301-687-4419 office
    301-687-4380 fax
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
    Charles Darwin

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List
    [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Donald Nordberg
    Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 6:01 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: a definition of competition

    Is the implication, then, that competition is not present when someone
    engages in sabotage? Because sabotage is anti-competitive,competition
    must be present between the parties. If all "unethical" behaviour were
    precluded - by definition - from competition, how could we have "unfair
    competition"?

    Hope this helps.

    Best wishes,


    Donald Nordberg
    Senior Lecturer in Strategy
    d.nordberg@westminster.ac.uk

    Westminster Business School
    University of Westminster
    35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, United Kingdom

    Corporate Governance: Principles and Issues, Sage Publications

    ________________________________________
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on
    behalf of Aime Heene [aime.heene@UGENT.BE]
    Sent: 05 December 2011 16:21
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: a definition of competition

    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows:
    "Competition (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action
    that constrain another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." The
    editor rejected this definition as it does not exclude "unethical"
    practices such as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair"
    or "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?
    --
    The University of Westminster is a charity and a company limited by
    guarantee. Registration number: 977818 England. Registered Office:
    309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK.


  • 8.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 11:35
    Addressing Thomas' point, subsets of competitors may indeed group together in joint strategies as you suggest, but isn't such grouping frequently for the purpose of competing against another subset of competitors? In other words, one can't rule out joint actions from the definition of 'competition' as these actions often take place for the purpose of increasing competitive strength, and therefore constraining 'other' (non-partner) rivals. While it's true that rivalry within partner arrangements should decrease, but rivalry may also increase outside of those arrangements - indeed that's the purpose of joint behavior, to make both firms competitively stronger vis-a-vis the remaining rivals. Joint actions (including collusive behavior) is only truly (net) anti-competitive in the special case of all (most?) relevant rivals jointly behaving to lower rivalry across the board, which is relatively rare by comparison.

    Doug O'Bannon, PhD
    Professor of Strategy
    Chair, Business Department
    Walker School of Business and Technology
    Webster University



    -----Original Message-----
    >From: Thomas Sigerstad <TSigerstad@FROSTBURG.EDU>
    >Sent: Dec 6, 2011 9:17 AM
    >To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >Subject: Re: a definition of competition
    >
    >It seems fairly clear, as others have suggested, that the editor's comments leave something to be desired. I would say they are a bit under informed and ought to be challenged, nicely of course.
    >
    >I however would think the definition you suggest: "Competition (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." leaves out another possibility in that competitors do group together to some extent in some areas with agreed upon joint strategies. These might include collusion at various levels (illegal in some areas in the US with notable exceptions in sports and agriculture but legal in some international arenas such as OPEC). They might also include technology agreements in an industry to actually lessen competition by toning down environmental dynamism. Some of this might be seen as competition group to group and some might be seen as competition against other stakeholders who may be impeding success/profitability, including the consumer.
    >
    >Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
    >Strategic Management
    >326 Framptom Hall
    >College of Business
    >Frostburg State University
    >101 Braddock Road
    >Frostburg, MD 21532
    >tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
    >301-687-4419 office
    >301-687-4380 fax
    >"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" Charles Darwin
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Business Policy and Strategy List [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Donald Nordberg
    >Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 6:01 AM
    >To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >Subject: Re: a definition of competition
    >
    >Is the implication, then, that competition is not present when someone engages in sabotage? Because sabotage is anti-competitive,competition must be present between the parties. If all "unethical" behaviour were precluded - by definition - from competition, how could we have "unfair competition"?
    >
    >Hope this helps.
    >
    >Best wishes,
    >
    >
    >Donald Nordberg
    >Senior Lecturer in Strategy
    >d.nordberg@westminster.ac.uk
    >
    >Westminster Business School
    >University of Westminster
    >35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, United Kingdom
    >
    >Corporate Governance: Principles and Issues, Sage Publications
    >
    >________________________________________
    >From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Aime Heene [aime.heene@UGENT.BE]
    >Sent: 05 December 2011 16:21
    >To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >Subject: a definition of competition
    >
    >I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows: "Competition (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." The editor rejected this definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such as "sabotage".
    >Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?
    >--
    >The University of Westminster is a charity and a company limited by guarantee. Registration number: 977818 England. Registered Office:
    >309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK.


  • 9.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 11:43

    Dear Professor Heene:

    You may want to look at the following two references to help you frame your general definition of "competition."

    Chen, M.-J. 1996.  Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration.  Academy of Management Review, 21: 100-134.

    Chen defines competition as "firms operating in the same industry, offering similar products, and targeting similar customers" based on the key constructs of market commonality and resource similarity (:104).

     

     

    Ferrier, W. 2001. Navigating the competitive landscape: The drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 858-877.

     

    Drawing from Chen's definition, Ferrier operationalized competitive interaction as pairs of large, single- or dominant-business firms operating in the same 4-digit SIC code.  This method may be helpful in guiding your research if you are doing an empirical study.


     

    In terms of your current manuscript, the editor's comments are valid, in that they require you to more precisely define your construct.  In addition, if the focus of the article is on ethical issues (even tangentially), then ethical versus unethical dimensions of competitiveness obviously should be considered. 

     

    At the extreme, of course, trying to account for all contingencies in defining "competition" or any other construct runs the risk of your paper becoming Monty Python-esque in its detail, such as the following example from The Life of Brian:

     

    "Your death will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the parent land from the hands of the Roman Imperialist aggressors, excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture...

     

    (You have to see the entire movie to understand the humor in this)

     

    In sum, good writing is succinct and good theory has strong boundary conditions.  Trying to develop all-encompassing definitions can make producing both of these difficult. 

     

    Hope this helps.

     

    Franz Lohrke
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Franz T. Lohrke
    Brock Family Chair in Entrepreneurship
    Chair, Department of Entrepreneurship, Management & Marketing
    301 DBH
    Brock School of Business
    Samford University
    800 Lakeshore Drive
    Birmingham, AL 35229
    Office: (205) 726-2373
    Fax:  (205) 726-2464
    http://faculty.samford.edu/~ftlohrke/  

    Secretary, Entrepreneurship Division, Academy of Management
    http://division.aomonline.org/ent/  
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    ________________________________________
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Aime Heene [aime.heene@UGENT.BE]
    Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:21 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: a definition of competition

    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows: "Competition
    (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain
    another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." The editor rejected this
    definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or
    "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?



  • 10.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 14:00
    May I suggest a visit to economists with a more dynamic and hence rivalrous view of competition (i.e. Hayek writing in the 1940s):

    "competition is by its nature a dynamic process whose essential characteristics are assumed away by the assumptions underlying static analysis."


    6 dec 2011 kl. 17:27 skrev Vincent Amanor-Boadu <vincent@AGECON.KSU.EDU>:

    May be a visit to the economics literature would help.  For economists,
    competition exists when firms are caught in homogenous markets
    (undifferentiated products/services and undifferentiated customers) with
    little or no information asymmetry, entry and exit barriers.  The
    essence of strategy is moving away from these markets, creating
    heterogeneity in products/services and customers and embedding
    information asymmetry and entry/exit barrier costs in the exchange
    process.

    When looked at from this perspective, the editors' concerns become moot
    because there does not have to be any amoral or nefarious activity for
    competition to exist.  Indeed, when such activities add no value to the
    firm, it is acting against its own self-interest and hence may
    considered irrational.  May be we need to remind these editors that our
    job as academics is not to institute morality because where would they
    draw the line? Would reducing production levels and selling in special
    markets that are unavailable to my competitors be immoral or sabotage?
    My competitors may consider it so.

    Greetings.

    Vincent Amanor-Boadu

    _______________________________________________________
    Vincent Amanor-Boadu, PhD
    Dept. of Agricultural Economics
    306 Waters Hall
    Kansas State University
    Manhattan, KS 66506
    Tel.: 785-532-3520
    Email: Vincent@ksu.edu





    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List
    [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Sigerstad
    Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:18 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: a definition of competition

    It seems fairly clear, as others have suggested, that the editor's
    comments leave something to be desired.  I would say they are a bit
    under informed and ought to be challenged, nicely of course.  

    I however would think the definition you suggest: "Competition (or
    rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain
    another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." leaves out another
    possibility in that competitors do group together to some extent in some
    areas with agreed upon joint strategies.  These might include collusion
    at various levels (illegal in some areas in the US with notable
    exceptions in sports and agriculture but legal in some international
    arenas such as OPEC).  They might also include technology agreements in
    an industry to actually lessen competition by toning down environmental
    dynamism.  Some of this might be seen as competition group to group and
    some might be seen as competition against other stakeholders who may be
    impeding success/profitability, including the consumer.

    Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
    Strategic Management
    326 Framptom Hall
    College of Business
    Frostburg State University
    101 Braddock Road
    Frostburg, MD 21532
    tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
    301-687-4419 office
    301-687-4380 fax
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
    Charles Darwin

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List
    [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Donald Nordberg
    Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 6:01 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: a definition of competition

    Is the implication, then, that competition is not present when someone
    engages in sabotage? Because sabotage is anti-competitive,competition
    must be present between the parties. If all "unethical" behaviour were
    precluded - by definition - from competition, how could we have "unfair
    competition"?

    Hope this helps.

    Best wishes,


    Donald Nordberg
    Senior Lecturer in Strategy
    d.nordberg@westminster.ac.uk

    Westminster Business School
    University of Westminster
    35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, United Kingdom

    Corporate Governance: Principles and Issues, Sage Publications

    ________________________________________
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on
    behalf of Aime Heene [aime.heene@UGENT.BE]
    Sent: 05 December 2011 16:21
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: a definition of competition

    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows:
    "Competition (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action
    that constrain another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." The
    editor rejected this definition as it does not exclude "unethical"
    practices such as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair"
    or "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?
    --
    The University of Westminster is a charity and a company limited by
    guarantee.  Registration number: 977818 England.  Registered Office:
    309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK.


  • 11.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 14:06
    Take a look at Brandenburger and Nalebuff's book "Co-opetition."� They clearly explicate business strategy as being made up of both cooperative and competitive interactions among a set of players in a game.� Questions of law, ethics, values, norms etc. could be broadly thought of as being part of the rules of the game. (Although they spent a considerable amount of time discussing the strategic value of "changing the rules of the game.") Since I haven't read your paper it's difficult to say whether or not the editor is being reasonable. Much of it depends on whether you are trying to describe the way players actually do interact or the way you think they should interact. Clearly these are not the same thing.

    Thanks, Isaac Fox

    On 12/6/2011 10:42 AM, Lohrke, Franz T. wrote:

    Dear Professor Heene:

    You may want to look at the following two references to help you frame your general definition of "competition."

    Chen, M.-J. 1996.� Competitor analysis and�interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration.� Academy of Management Review,�21: 100-134.

    Chen defines competition as "firms operating in the same industry, offering similar products, and targeting similar customers" based on the key constructs of market commonality and resource similarity (:104).

    �

    �

    Ferrier, W. 2001.�Navigating the competitive landscape: The drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal,�44: 858-877.

    �

    Drawing from Chen's definition, Ferrier�operationalized competitive interaction as pairs of large, single- or dominant-business firms operating in the same 4-digit SIC code.� This method may be helpful in guiding your research if you are doing an empirical study.


    �

    In terms of your current manuscript, the editor's comments are valid, in that they require you to more precisely define your construct.� In addition, if the focus of the article is on ethical issues (even tangentially), then ethical versus unethical dimensions of competitiveness obviously�should be considered.�

    �

    At the extreme, of course, trying to account for all contingencies in defining�"competition" or any other construct�runs the risk of your�paper becoming Monty Python-esque in�its detail, such as the following example from The Life of Brian:

    �

    "Your death will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the parent land from the hands of the Roman Imperialist aggressors, excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture...

    �

    (You have to see the entire movie to�understand the humor in this)

    �

    In sum, good writing is succinct and good theory has strong boundary conditions.� Trying to develop�all-encompassing�definitions can make�producing�both of these�difficult.�

    �

    Hope this helps.

    �

    Franz Lohrke
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Franz T. Lohrke
    Brock Family Chair in Entrepreneurship
    Chair, Department of Entrepreneurship, Management & Marketing
    301 DBH
    Brock School of Business
    Samford�University
    800 Lakeshore Drive
    Birmingham, AL 35229
    Office: (205) 726-2373
    Fax:� (205) 726-2464
    http://faculty.samford.edu/~ftlohrke/ �

    Secretary, Entrepreneurship Division, Academy of Management
    http://division.aomonline.org/ent/ �
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    ________________________________________
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of�Aime�Heene [aime.heene@UGENT.BE]
    Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:21 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: a definition of competition

    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows: "Competition
    (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain
    another firm�s prospects for achieving its goals." The editor rejected this
    definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or
    "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?



  • 12.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 17:58
    Hi Donald:

    I could not do anything but laugh when I saw this :-) . . . what a can of worms indeed.

    In my opinion, "unethical" or "ethical" practices are very much context specific and will vary in meaning between countries. This is a very subjective topic. What a difficult dilemma to deal with at a journal.

    I wish you all the best with your research!

    George

    ________________________________________________
    George O. White III, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D.
    Assistant Professor of Management & International Business
    Old Dominion University
    Department of Management
    2166 Constant Hall
    Norfolk, Virginia 23529
    Phone: 757-683-3836
    Fax: 757-683-3258
    Email: gowhite@odu.edu
    Web: www.odu.edu/~gowhite

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Donald Nordberg
    Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 6:01 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: a definition of competition

    Is the implication, then, that competition is not present when someone engages in sabotage? Because sabotage is anti-competitive,competition must be present between the parties. If all "unethical" behaviour were precluded - by definition - from competition, how could we have "unfair competition"?

    Hope this helps.

    Best wishes,


    Donald Nordberg
    Senior Lecturer in Strategy
    d.nordberg@westminster.ac.uk

    Westminster Business School
    University of Westminster
    35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, United Kingdom

    Corporate Governance: Principles and Issues, Sage Publications

    ________________________________________
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Aime Heene [aime.heene@UGENT.BE]
    Sent: 05 December 2011 16:21
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: a definition of competition

    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows: "Competition
    (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain
    another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." The editor rejected this
    definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or
    "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?
    --
    The University of Westminster is a charity and a company limited by
    guarantee. Registration number: 977818 England. Registered Office:
    309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK.


    --
    BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
    ------------------------------------------------------

    Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 586273134) is spam:
    Spam: https://www.spamtrap.odu.edu/b.php?i=586273134&m=90201b2cc661&t=20111206&c=s
    Not spam: https://www.spamtrap.odu.edu/b.php?i=586273134&m=90201b2cc661&t=20111206&c=n
    Forget vote: https://www.spamtrap.odu.edu/b.php?i=586273134&m=90201b2cc661&t=20111206&c=f
    ------------------------------------------------------
    END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS


  • 13.  a definition of competition

    Posted 12-06-2011 18:33
    I have a problem with Chen's definition:
    Do bullet trains not compete with short-haul flights?
    I guess this emphasizes the importance of being clear about one's boundary condition.
    Regards,
    Samir
     
    >>> "Lohrke, Franz T." <ftlohrke@SAMFORD.EDU> 7/12/2011 3:42 AM >>>

    Dear Professor Heene:

    You may want to look at the following two references to help you frame your general definition of "competition."

    Chen, M.-J. 1996.  Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration.  Academy of Management Review, 21: 100-134.

    Chen defines competition as "firms operating in the same industry, offering similar products, and targeting similar customers" based on the key constructs of market commonality and resource similarity (:104).

     

     

    Ferrier, W. 2001. Navigating the competitive landscape: The drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 858-877.

     

    Drawing from Chen's definition, Ferrier operationalized competitive interaction as pairs of large, single- or dominant-business firms operating in the same 4-digit SIC code.  This method may be helpful in guiding your research if you are doing an empirical study.


     

    In terms of your current manuscript, the editor's comments are valid, in that they require you to more precisely define your construct.  In addition, if the focus of the article is on ethical issues (even tangentially), then ethical versus unethical dimensions of competitiveness obviously should be considered. 

     

    At the extreme, of course, trying to account for all contingencies in defining "competition" or any other construct runs the risk of your paper becoming Monty Python-esque in its detail, such as the following example from The Life of Brian:

     

    "Your death will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the parent land from the hands of the Roman Imperialist aggressors, excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture...

     

    (You have to see the entire movie to understand the humor in this)

     

    In sum, good writing is succinct and good theory has strong boundary conditions.  Trying to develop all-encompassing definitions can make producing both of these difficult. 

     

    Hope this helps.

     

    Franz Lohrke
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Franz T. Lohrke
    Brock Family Chair in Entrepreneurship
    Chair, Department of Entrepreneurship, Management & Marketing
    301 DBH
    Brock School of Business
    Samford University
    800 Lakeshore Drive
    Birmingham, AL 35229
    Office: (205) 726-2373
    Fax:  (205) 726-2464
    http://faculty.samford.edu/~ftlohrke/  

    Secretary, Entrepreneurship Division, Academy of Management
    http://division.aomonline.org/ent/  
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    ________________________________________
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Aime Heene [aime.heene@UGENT.BE]
    Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:21 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: a definition of competition

    I'm preparing a paper in which I defined competition as follows: "Competition
    (or rivalry) exists when a firm executes courses of action that constrain
    another firm's prospects for achieving its goals." The editor rejected this
    definition as it does not exclude "unethical" practices such as "sabotage".
    Anyone who can suggest a better definition that would exclude "unfair" or
    "unethical" practices from the definition of competition?