From Library Journal
Losing and winning are two extremes by which businesses are often measured. Brandenburger (Harvard Business Sch.) and Nalebuff (Yale Sch. of Management) argue that most businesses and their transactions lie somewhere between the two poles. Their liberating message is that your competitor does not have to fail for you to win. Conversely, you don't have to fail either. Your failure, in fact, can hurt your competitor. It is better, the authors assert, to have both cooperation and competition. Game theory requires drawing a representation of one's customers, suppliers, competitors, and complementers. In this strategy of business as a game, the rules, players, tactics, and scope can be changed to the individual's advantage. The authors present complicated cases to illustrate their points. The writing is usually solid, but the authors went to the well too many times with some of their examples. A little variety in illustrating their ideas would have been welcome. Such minor shortcomings aside, this title is recommended for all academic libraries.?Randy L. Abbott, Univ. of Evansville Libs., Ind.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Management and organizational theorists are continually investigating new models to explain organizational behavior. Traditionally, competition has often been a component of those models, but now researchers are looking at other behaviors and using theories from other fields of study. James Moore recently proclaimed The Death of Competition
(1996) and put forth a complex model based on natural ecosystems that emphasizes symbiotic, cooperative relationships. Now Brandenburger and Nalebuff, academics from the Harvard Business School and the Yale School of Management, respectively, also suggest that business strategy in today's global environment must combine competition and cooperation, but they employ mathematical game theory to make their argument. David Rouse