War & Business Strategies

War
&
Business
Strategy

Understanding
Founda4ons
and
Drawing
Parallels

HTTP://EMAGINE-GROUP.COM BRAND FOCUSED, SOCIALLY ACTIVE, DIGITALLY ENABLED

By
a
show
of
hands,
how
many
of
you

believe
that
military
and
business

strategy
are
the
same?


Understanding
the
Similari0es


In
the
world
of
business,
we
regularly

hear
phrases
like
“we
have
won
the

baDle
for
industry
leadership,”
“we
have

successfully
defended
our
market

posi4on,”
or
“we
have
made
a
killing
in

the
stock
market”


These
phrases
use
military
terminology

to
express
business
successes,
but
is

that
where
the
rela4onship
ends?


Both
the
military
and
business
are

concerned
with
compe44on
and
how
to

succeed
in
the
face
of
determined

adversaries.


In
one
case,
there
is
physical
survival;
in

the
other,
there
is
commercial
survival.


Both
use
a
mental
ac4vity
which
seeks

to
iden4fy
a
way
of
winning,
and
each

deﬁnes
this
process
as
“strategy.”


In
each
case,
resources
–
physical,

human
and
moral
–
are
applied
at

cri4cal
points
in
an
aDempt
to
achieve

the
aim.


Between
500
–
600
BC,
Sun
Tzu,
a
great

Chinese
General,
began
wri4ng
his

volume
on
military
strategy
called
the

Art
of
War.


Sun
Tzu
proposed
that
the
most

successful
general
was
one
that
could

win
before
the
ﬁgh4ng
has
to
start

(deterrence);
that
superior
manpower,

posi4on,
technology
and
so
on
would

prevail
(competitive advantage);
and
to

avoid
what
is
strong
(indirect approach).


Heads
of
State
also
used
military

strategy
to
ensure
that
their
na4ons

survived
or
to
minimize
the
aﬀects
of

aggressive
moves
by
compe4tors.


This
strategy
is
conducted
on
a
world

stage
and
can
result
in
the
loss
of
lives,

will
involve
vast
sums
of
money,
and
will

inﬂuence
the
progress
of
human
history.


This
type
of
strategy
is
known
as
a

Grand
Strategy.


An
example
of
grand
strategy
is
the

conquest
of
India,
but
the
way
this
is

achieved
also
requires
a
means,
method

and
a
plan.


This
is
where
strategy
changes
to
tac4cs.


BaDalion
commanders
will
develop
a

“strategy”
to
conquer
the
enemy,
but

the
Corps
Commanders
will
look
at

these
at
“tac4cs.”


Strategy
is
the
theory
of
the
use
of

combats
for
the
object
of
war.

Tac*cs
is
the
theory
of
the
use
of

military
forces
in
combat.


Diﬀerences
Between
Military
and

Business
Strategy


Many
people
who
study
strategy
have

tried
to
disprove
the
link
between

military
and
business
strategy…


This
is
not
possible
to
do
for
a
number

of
reasons…


First,
there
was
no
such
thing
as

business
strategy
prior
to
the
1960s.

Before
that,
all
strategy
was
considered

military
strategy.


In
the
military,
ge;ng
results
is
as
easy

as
giving
orders.
It’s
not
that
simple
in

civilian
life.


We
believe
that
ge_ng
results
is
as
easy

(or
as
diﬃcult)
as
giving
the
right
orders,

whether
in
the
military
or
in
business.


Making
the
right
decision
and
building
a

team
to
execute
the
decision
is
a

challenge
for
a
leader.


In
both
spheres,
the
leader
must
act

through
people.


As
a
business
person,
I
have
to
make
a

proﬁt.
In
the
military,
you
don’t
have
to

face
that
pressure.


While
we
agree,
the
military
does
not

face
the
same
kind
of
boDom
line

pressures
that
business
face.


The
pressure
that
all
of
our

organiza4ons
face
is
pressure
to

perform,
to
succeed
and
to
win.


In
today’s
world,
with
poli4cal
demands

for
accountability
and
eﬃciency,
the

military
has
been
forced
to
reduce
its

costs
and
improve
its
produc4vity
as

surely
as
any
private
enterprise.


In
business,
I
have
to
struggle,
get
and

keep
customers,
but
the
military
is
a

public
ins0tu0on
–
you
don’t
have
to
go

out
and
ﬁnd
customers.


In
a
sense,
Pakistan’s
ci4zens
are
the

military’s
customers
and
they
are
in
no

danger
of
losing
them.


The
danger
is
in
failing
them
on
the

baDleﬁeld.
In
that
sense,
compe44on
is

at
the
core
of
the
military’s
existence.


Strategy


We
were
taught
in
business
school
that

–
good
strategy
does
not
recognize
the

concept
of
victory.


Strategy
is
the
way
to
gain
advantage
in

the
current
circumstances
and
as
far

ahead
as
it
is
possible
to
look,
but
retain

the
understanding
that
adjustment
may

have
to
be
made.


As
I
men4oned
previously,
business

strategy
did
not
emerge
un4l
the
1960s,

so
the
concept
of
strategy
was
started

by
the
military
and
later
adopted
by
the

business
world.


Understanding
the
Origins
of
Strategy


The
word
strategy
comes
from
two

Greek
words
–
stratos
(army)
and
agein

(to
lead)
–
which
means
“art
of
the

general.”


The
reason
for
telling
you
this
is
not
just

to
show
you
where
the
word
comes

from,
but
that
it
has
been
around
since

500
BC.


In
508
BC,
in
the
great
city
of
Athens,

ten
tribal
divisions
were
formed,
each

headed
by
an
elected
strategos.


The
crea4on
of
a
strategos
showed
the

increase
in
the
military
decision-‐making

process
and
the
complexity
that
came

with
it.


Warfare
had
evolved
to
the
point
where

winning
sides
no
longer
relied
on
the

deeds
of
heroic
individuals
but
on
the

co-‐ordina4on
of
many
diﬀerent
units
of

men
ﬁgh4ng
in
close
forma4on.


Strategoi
were
not
only
selected
for

their
wisdom,
but
were
also
required
to

have
ﬁrst-‐hand
experience
in
baDle.


They
also
required
vision,
ar4cula4on

and
communicate
it
to
the
people.


In
338
BC,
Philip
of
Macedon
and
his
son

Alexander
the
Great
gained
victory
in

the
baDle
of
Chaeronea…


Many
of
us
use
this
baDle
to
draw

parallels
with
current
management

concepts…


The
Parallels

Ø  Philip
and
Alexander
had
very
clear
goals
in
the
baDle

Ø  They
used
an
indirect
approach

Ø  They
used
decep4on

Ø  They
had
a
well-‐developed
con4ngency
plan

Ø  They
exploited
their
top-‐down
command
structure
against
a

Greek
military
that
relied
on
the
more
diﬃcult
democra4c

system

Ø  They
analyzed
their
strengths
and
weaknesses,
and
used
their

strengths
to
oﬀset
their
weaknesses

Ø  They
aDacked
their
opponent’s
weaknesses

Ø  They
concentrated
their
forces
at
the
cri4cal
points


This
evidence
shows
that
strategic

thinking
by
the
Macedonians
to
achieve

superiority
over
the
larger
Greek
forces.


Sun
Tzu’s
Art
of
War
was
the
ﬁrst

wriDen
document
on
the
principles
of

strategy,
and
his
declara4ons
have
been

quoted
in
recent
years
in
the
business

context…


The
Art
of
War
Taught

Ø  Stressed
the
value
of
planning

Ø  Recognized
the
value
of
4ming

Ø  Explained
that
war
was
a
contest
of
wills
of
opposing
generals

Ø  An4cipated
the
strategy
of
the
indirect
approach

Ø  Stressed
the
importance
of
mobility

Ø  Iden4ﬁed
leadership
and
morale
as
important
aDributes
of

successful
forces

Ø  Along
with
a
number
of
other
observa4ons
s4ll
relevant
today

to
business
people


In
Rome,
the
Romans
were
ruthless
and

warlike,
habits
that
had
become
part
of

their
culture
over
decades
of
war.


The
Senate
was
responsible
for
strategic

decision
making
at
the
direc4on
of
the

state,
but
Senators
were
not
only

poli4cians…


No
Roman
could
stand
for
poli4cal
oﬃce

un4l
he
had
served
on
ten
annual

military
campaigns.


Like
the
strategoi
of
Greece,
the
Roman

strategies
knew
from
ﬁrst
hand

experience
about
military
opera4ons.


The
Romans
did
not
face
a
single
enemy

whose
ul4mate
defeat
would
ensure

permanent
security.
Their
only
goal
was

the
maintenance
of
a
minimally

adequate
level
of
security
at
the
lowest

feasible
cost
to
society.


These
condi4ons
are
similar
to
the

problems
that
modern
corpora4ons
face

–
no
single
baDle
wins
security,
but
they

face
an
endless
aDack
of
compe4tors
in

which
only
the
most
eﬃcient
will
survive


Origins
of
Strategy
in
Business


Strategy
can
be
seen
as
“the
way
to

win.”
So
winners
must
have
a
strategy

whether
they
acknowledge
it
or
not.


Henry
Mintzberg
developed
the

founda4onal
principle
of
the
diﬀerent

components
of
strategy:


Plan
–
recognized
that
a
common
view
is

that
strategy
is
a
consciously
intended

course
of
ac4on
which
is
made
in

advance
of
the
ac4on
and
is
purposeful.


Ploy
–
suggests
that
strategy
can
be
a

manoeuver
intended
to
outwit
or

confuse
the
opposi4on.


PaDern
–
iden4ﬁes
a
consistency
in

strategic
behavior,
whether
or
not

intended,
that
over
4me
becomes

recognizable
or
even
predictable.


Posi4on
–
means
that
strategy
locates

an
organiza4on
in
an
environment
and
is

a
media4ng
or
matching
force
between

an
organiza4on
and
the
outside
world.


Perspec4ve
–
proposes
that
strategy
is

the
way
an
organiza4on
perceives
the

world,
an
abstract
concept
that
shapes

the
behavior
of
the
par4es
involved.


Michael
Porter
broke
strategy
into
further

components
to
be
used
as
compe44on:

New
Entrants,
Subs4tute
Products,
Power
of

Suppliers,
Power
of
Buyers,
and
Industry

Compe44on.


Campbell
and
Young
deﬁned
the
Ashridge

Model
for
how
strategy
could
be
used
for

se_ng
the
mission/vision
of
an
organiza4on:

Purpose,
Values,
Behavior
Standards
and

Strategy


We
also
know
that
strategy
must
be
able

to
drive
decision
making.


Strategy
is
the
choice
from
many

available
op4ons
as
a
way
to

succeeding.


So
what
we
learn
is
that
strategy
is
all
of

its
forms,
originated
from
the
military

and
was
tailored
to
business
to
achieve

compe44ve
advantage,
a
mission
or

vision,
target
objec4ves
and
drive
the

decision
making
process.


War & Business Strategies

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (7)

Similaire à War & Business Strategies

Similaire à War & Business Strategies (20)

Plus de commandeleven

Plus de commandeleven (18)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

War & Business Strategies