Beware of “Reconnaissance by Fire”!

Situation

Reconnaissance by fire is a way of obtaining enemy intelligence that cannot be gathered through ordinary reconnaissance. Damian McKinney says, “When you deliberately engage the enemy in a small-scale clash, fully prepared to take losses, you can learn a great deal.”

The same applies in business. Sometimes, simply playing by the rules is not enough to win. Competitors who file patent lawsuits against you, poach your talent, or open a store right next to yours are formidable opponents.

Deep Dive

The English term for military reconnaissance is reconnaissance, which is commonly shortened to recce (British English) or recon (American English). When I first joined McKinney Rogers, I was told during preparations for a workshop venue check,
 “Let’s do a recce!”
and I remember thinking,
 “What on earth does that mean?”

Having worked closely with former military commanders, one thing I have consistently felt is:
 “Wow—soldiers really do care most about the enemy.”

Having grown up in the business world, what matters most to me above all else is the customer. I’ve been conditioned to think,
 “If customers are satisfied, you can beat the competition.”
By contrast, military commanders—even in a business context—never stop asking:
 “Which company is our biggest enemy?”
 “Do we have enough intelligence on them?”
Their awareness of intelligence gathering and reconnaissance directed at competitors is extremely high. It’s not that they disregard customers, but whenever I see how the enemy never leaves their thoughts, I can’t help thinking,
 “Well… our backgrounds are clearly different.”

Among reconnaissance operations, there is a type called reconnaissance by fire, in which a small-scale attack is deliberately launched to determine the enemy’s position, strength, and equipment. Since the goal is not to defeat the enemy, the unit withdraws quickly after gathering information. Naturally, because it involves actual combat, a certain level of casualties is expected. Recon by fire is carried out only when commanders judge that,
 “Even with some losses, the intelligence gained will be worth it for achieving the mission.”
Everything is always judged by one unwavering standard:
 “Does this contribute to mission success?”
That consistency is one of the defining traits of the military.

In the business world, activities equivalent to reconnaissance by fire would include patent lawsuits, poaching key talent from competitors, or opening a store right next to a rival’s location. None of these are illegal, but they are hardly “polite” ways of competing—and customers come second.

During the time when I served as a company president, I personally encountered a rare example of reconnaissance by fire in the business world. It was when I started thinking,
 “Maybe it’s time for a career change.”
I reached out to an old acquaintance, a headhunter named Ms. Y. She replied,
 “This might be a long shot, but could you meet with some people from my client, a fund called Company S?”
At the time, Company S was an aggressive, so-called “predatory” fund that was making waves in Japan. Ms. Y confided,
 “Company S has such a bad reputation that candidates won’t even agree to meet them.”
For her, being unable to introduce any candidates was a serious credibility issue, so she approached me, thinking I might be tough enough to handle them. I replied,
 “I don’t see any problem with meeting them,”
and we quickly set up an interview.

I met several of Company S’s executives, and our chemistry wasn’t bad. They stated their position very clearly:
 “Our thinking is simple. We buy companies cheaply, increase their value, and sell them at a higher price. Buying and selling is our job. We want you to take on the role of increasing the company’s value.”
I found their blunt style matched their reputation and said,
 “If the timing works out, let’s work together,”
and we stayed in touch.

Then, a few months later, I suddenly received a call on my mobile phone from Company S.
 “Tomorrow is the shareholders’ meeting of Company A, in which we have a capital stake. We want to present an attractive new management team and secure a majority of the voting rights. May we put your name forward as a candidate for director?”
This was reconnaissance by fire. I was genuinely shocked and replied,
 “As long as I am still the president of my current company, I cannot agree to have my name put forward as a director candidate for another company.”
They simply said,
 “I see. We’ll look elsewhere. No problem,”
and the call ended in less than a minute. A swift withdrawal.

After hanging up, I thought,
 “Trying to put my name forward not just as an outside director, but as a full-time management member—that’s pretty aggressive.”
At the same time, I also felt,
 “The way they directly tested my seriousness—that’s impressive…”
 “The fact that they were prepared to concretely propose a full management overhaul at a shareholders’ meeting—that’s impressive too…”

Setting personal likes and dislikes aside, I felt the sheer force of their style—brandishing a real sword and slashing in all directions. Honestly, my first thought was:
 “They’re formidable. I really wouldn’t want them as an enemy.”