The Art of the Strategist

William Cohen

• Publisher: AMACOM
• Year: 2004
• Topic: Business
• eBook ISBN:
  9780814427941
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

From ancient battlefields to the modern business landscape, competitors have tried innumerable approaches to conquering adversaries. Success for the victors has taken many forms and traveled many paths, but at its heart, winning strategy can be boiled down to ten universal principles. When learned and implemented, these principals become powerful drivers of business excellence. Renowned strategy expert William A. Cohen, whose considerable experience in the military, corporate, and academic sectors forms the basis for The Art of the Strategist, presents the timeless lessons of: * commitment to a definite objective * seizing and maintaining the initiative * economization to mass (concentration of resources) * positioning * surprise * multiple simultaneous alternatives * the indirect approach * simplicity * timing * exploiting success With examples including the conquests of Hannibal and Alexander the Great, the political triumphs of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the business successes of internet giant VeriSign and other high-profile companies, The Art of the Strategist proves how superior strategy trumps other factors in almost every competitive arena. The ten lessons in turn form a roadmap to decisive victory in business.

PART 1

The Roots of Strategy

CHAPTER A

For Every Leader, Strategy
Is the Key to Success

“The best of all is not to win every battle by force. The best of all is to make the enemy yield without fighting. So the highest of all military principles is to overcome the enemy by strategy.”

—SUN TZU

“Our ship would come in much sooner if we’d only swim out to meet it.”

—ANONYMOUS

In 216 B.C., the Carthaginian general Hannibal encountered 72,000 Romans at a place called Cannae in Southern Italy. His own army numbered only 20,000. Both armies were equally well armed and trained. Each had a similar cavalry force of about 2,000 horsemen. Besides sheer numbers, the Romans had one other important edge. They were fighting on their own turf while Hannibal’s army was hundreds of miles across the Mediterranean Sea from its base of operations.

If you look at the numbers alone, Hannibal should have surrendered or retreated. The Romans expected him to do so. He didn’t. He did the unexpected and surprised his opponent. He decided that the only way he could succeed was if he destroyed, not just defeated, the superior Roman army opposing him. He therefore defined this as his clear objective. Moreover, he was fully committed to accomplishing this objective despite the odds against him

TAKING THE INITIATIVE

Hannibal didn’t wait for the Romans to attack and then react. Instead, Hannibal took the initiative and acted first. His plan was not complicated; it was very simple. No one needed to be a military genius to understand it. He divided his army into three main parts. He concentrated the bulk on his left and right flanks. He was stronger than the Romans opposing him at these locations. To concentrate on the two flanks, he economized and stripped his center. He arranged this much-weaker force at his center in advance of his flanks so that his army formed an inverted “V,” with the weak point aimed directly at the Romans. As we will see, even the fact that the point was weak was designed to work to his advantage. Of course, the Romans could not see Hannibal’s disposition of forces. The apex in the advance of his strong flanks guarded his intentions. All the Romans saw was a solid mass of their enemy. This guarded his intentions.

ECONOMIZING HIS FORCES

Hannibal posted his cavalry on the left and right flanks of this inverted “V” opposite the Roman cavalry. But there was a difference in how Hannibal placed his cavalry as compared to the Romans. The Romans simply split their cavalry, 1,000 men on each side of their main force. Hannibal concentrated the greater part of his cavalry on the left. The small cavalry detachment he put on the right was told merely to shout and make a lot of noise. The technical, military strategy term for such an action is “a demonstration.” They were there to keep the 1,000 Roman cavalrymen opposite them occupied with a demonstration. That way the Roman cavalry was unable to reflect on the fact that it was opposed and held in place by only a small force of horsemen. Hannibal economized the cavalry on his right flank and then concentrated them on his left flank to attain superior numbers there. By the small force of cavalry of the right keeping the larger opposing Roman cavalry occupied, he further maintained security.

GAINING THE ADVANTAGE

As the battle opened, Hannibal’s larger cavalry force on his left, with almost a two-to-one advantage, easily defeated the smaller Roman cavalry detachment. Then, it swept around unopposed, taking the indirect approach, behind the 70,000 Roman foot soldiers. The 1,000 Roman cavalry on the right were now heavily outnumbered and trapped between the two Carthaginian cavalry forces. They were easily overwhelmed and destroyed. The Romans had lost their entire cavalry force in the first few minutes of battle, and the Roman general, Varro, didn’t even know it. (This positioning and the action of Hannibal’s cavalry in Phase I are shown in Figure A-1.)

The reason for the confusion was that there was so much action going on in the Roman center, where most of their forces were engaged. The 70,000 Roman foot soldiers were marching forward and came up against the weak Carthaginian center. They appeared to be unstoppable. As this massive Roman force advanced, pushing against the much weaker Carthaginian center, the center retreated and passed between the strong Carthaginian forces on the two flanks. The “V” no longer pointed at the Romans, but slowly inverted as the apex retreated while the flanks held fast. Soon, the apex of the “V” pointed away from the Romans. Hannibal had once again taken the indirect approach to trap his enemy, but the Romans did not yet realize it.

Figure A-1

MAINTAINING THE INITIATIVE

Varro thought the Carthaginians were crumbling as Hannibal’s apex retreated. So he gave the order to increase the speed of advance. The Carthaginians’ apex retreated farther and drew the Romans into their giant trap at an even faster pace. As the Romans advanced into the funnel formed by the now-inverted Carthaginian “V,” they were forced closer and closer together by the heavy numbers of Carthaginians on either side. As the density of Roman soldiers between the two strong Carthaginian flanks increased, movement became difficult and the Romans could scarcely wield their famous short swords.

It was at this point that Hannibal, again maintaining the initiative, gave the order to go from a defensive posture to full attack. Like two great doors, the two wings of the “V” swung in on the closely packed Romans. The Carthaginian cavalry joined in from the rear. Pressed from all sides and unable to defend themselves, the well-trained Roman infantry faltered and broke. As they attempted to get away, it was every man for himself. Hannibal exploited his success until he completely destroyed the opposing force, as he had intended. Of the original Roman army of 72,000 with which Varro began the fight, only 12,000 survived. (Phase II of the Battle of Cannae is shown in Figure A-2.)

Remember, the battle wasn’t a question of training or fighting harder. The Romans had the best-trained armies in the world . . . and both sides were fighting to the death.

What if Varro had taken a different course in this battle? Let us say that instead of attacking right up the middle, he had attacked against either the left or right flank of Hannibal’s army. Hannibal was positioned to use multiple alternatives. He had strong forces on both flanks. Had Varro attacked either flank, Hannibal could have enveloped the attacking force with the strong forces he had placed at the opposing flank. Varro didn’t know it, but because of Hannibal’s positioning for multiple alternatives, the Roman general would probably have been defeated no matter what he did, despite having an almost four-to-one advantage. That is the power of properly employing the principles of strategy.

Hannibal used military strategy to conquer a superior force in a life- and-death battle. However, the art of strategy is used to achieve victory every day in all kinds of situations.

Figure A-2

STRATEGIC LESSONS FROM A TELEVISION SHOW

In the spring of 2001, more than 36 million viewers watched the final episode of Survivor on CBS television. They saw a forty-year-old nurse and mom, Tina Wesson, win the $1 million first prize after forty-two days in the Australian outback with little food while enduring severe environmental conditions. Fifteen other competitors, younger and stronger, of both genders, and with arguably better survival skills, had been eliminated. For every “immunity challenge” won during a physical and mental competition with the others, the rules granted someone immunity against being eliminated from the game for a week. Tina hadn’t won a single one of these challenges. Colby Donaldson, the superbly conditioned twenty-seven-year-old rodeo rider, won eleven immunity challenges. Yet, in the overall contest, he came in second against Tina and won $100,000. Both contestants stated that while luck was an important factor, Tina’s victory was based primarily on her strategy of being a valuable but inconspicuous underdog. Thus, she was not voted out, and with luck of a single voting in the final round, she managed to win out against a much stronger competitor.

For those unfamiliar with Survivor, the first of the successful “reality” television series, contestants are taken to remote locations and divided into two separate “tribes.” With little food and under extremely primitive conditions, not only must these individuals survive, they must also compete at “immunity challenge” tasks. At first, this competition is between tribes. The winning tribe is granted immunity for all of its members for that week. The losing tribe must vote to banish one of its members. After everyone casts a vote and collectively declares “the tribe has spoken,” the person who has been voted out is sent packing. As the numbers dwindle, the two tribes are integrated into a single tribe. Thereafter, challenges grant immunity for one cycle to an individual, not the entire tribe. When there are only two survivors remaining, the previous six survivors eliminated pick the single survivor, who is awarded $1 million.

Richard Hatch, fifty pounds overweight and the winner of the first Survivor contest, emphasized the importance of strategy in his victory. “I won,” he said, “by sticking to my strategy.” Hatch formed and led a coalition that, voting as a bloc, was strong enough to eliminate candidates they selected. When only the coalition members remained, he again took actions to give himself the advantage. Thus, although the second-place contestant won the last immunity challenge, it was Hatch who won the overall contest. In fact, the second-place contestant, wilderness guide Kelly Wiglesworth, had won four straight individual immunity challenges. She fully expected to win over Hatch, who was unpopular and known to all as “the survivor you love to hate.” Still, like Colby Donaldson, Wiglesworth also lost to a superior strategy, as have all Survivor winners since these first two. Strategy is clearly what it takes to win.

THIS STRATEGY WAS SIMPLE, BUT IT HELPED WIN AN ELECTION

In Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, he was behind in every poll in his race for president. With allegations of sexual misconduct and philandering swirling around him, leading political analysts and columnists agreed that it was just a matter of days before he would be forced to drop out. Then, employing an amazing strategy based on just four words—“It’s the economy, stupid!”—Clinton strategist James Carville turned it all around. Clinton concentrated on this short message to the exclusion of all else. This simple strategy led to defeat for George Bush and two terms for Clinton as president. Though living 2,500 years before the Clinton bid for the presidency, the Greek general Xenophon would have related to Carville’s strategy, and the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu would also have understood it perfectly.

MASTERING STRATEGY MEANS SUCCESS . . . EVEN IN ROMANCE

When I first studied military strategy at West Point, I recall one of my professors stating that the same principles of strategy for war were also true for romance. This motivated an immediate interest among the young cadets in my class, who in those days were all male. Their professional interest might be battle, but their primary interest for the coming weekend inevitably had to do with besting the competition to win the favor of members of the opposite sex. Thus informed, cadets soon learned it was ultimately much more effective to concentrate their efforts on one girl,...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Part 1: The Roots of Strategy
• Part 2: The 10 Essential Principles
• Part 3: Putting the Strategic Principles Into Action
• Notes
• Index