This topic, which tends to divide opinions, was present in more than one meeting at the start of this week, and I thought it would be worth sharing the reflection. In short, what we believe in and which directly influences the way we operate:
- Warlike strategies are those in which you run to defend yourself and, generally, use “force”. Examples: counterattack with notifications and/or legal actions; responds aggressively and forcefully through the press, its channels or third parties; mobilizes people to react in an orchestrated way; or uses its influential (or economic) power to retaliate.
- War strategies are noisy and, therefore, tend to attract a lot of attention, including from people who may not have known about the case. In the digital and artificial intelligence world, it even means that you may be immortalizing a chapter in your history that you would like to be overcome or forgotten.
- Military strategies can generate excessive empathy for the other side, especially if the other person, from whom you defend yourself, becomes exposed and vulnerable. There is a risk of creating a saga of the villain and the good guy. And if the narrative of the case is not indisputable for your side, you may end up as the “villain”.
- Warlike strategies bother people and companies that are more discreet, conciliatory and do not like public arguments or getting involved in controversies. In other words: you can alienate precisely the silent majority that could be on your side.
- War strategies are paths to losses and gains. Whoever is at the top or has a reputation to uphold has the most to lose. Therefore, at ANK, we rarely choose this path for leading companies.
Important: There are cases, few, but there are, in which this strategy may be necessary. In these situations, the “how to do” will be useful.
Anik Suzuki is CEO of ANK Reputation
anik@ankreputation.com.br
