Clausewitz insisted on aggressively following up after concentrating force at the decisive point. Any strategy that doesnât account for how to exploit victory is incomplete, inadequate. âWhat remains true under all imaginable conditions,â he wrote, âis that no victory will be effective without pursuit; and no matter how brief the exploitation of victory, it must always go further than an immediate follow-up.
Related Quotes
A wide range of authors on the subject all came to a startlingly simple conclusion: the United States didnât know precisely what it was trying to achieve, and it was therefore impossible to have an effective strategy. A 1974 survey of Army generals who had commanded in Vietnam found that almost 70% of them were uncertain of United States objectives.
Donât get us wrong. We donât mean to imply that tactical excellence (as the United States had in Vietnam) is unimportant. Itâs essential, but it should be within the context of a clear overall vision. Vision, then strategy, then tactics.
There is no higher and simpler law of strategy than that of keeping oneâs forces concentrated,â wrote Clausewitz. (Side note: If youâre interested in a smart overview of the history of military strategy, including Clausewitzâs work, I recommend U.S. Naval War College Professor Andrew R. Wilsonâs Teaching Company course Masters of War: Historyâs Greatest Strategic Thinkers. I also recommend the essays of retired West Point professor Dr. Michael Hennelly, who has done extensive thinking on the translation of strategic principles into the business world.)
This is the fourth and final element of the logic flow. The question to address is this: is there some competitive response that could undermine or trump the where-to-play and how-to-win choices?
Inevitably, this is guesswork to some degree; you canât know for sure what a competitor will or wonât do in the face of your actions. But forming a thoughtful hypothesis is important. It is far better to ask what your competitors will likely do before you proceed than to simply wait and see what happens. Only strategies that provide a sustainable advantageâor a significant lead in developing future advantagesâare worth investing in. You donât want to design and build a strategy that a competitor can copy in a heartbeat, or one that will prove ineffective against a simple defensive maneuver on a competitorâs part.
A strategy that only works if competitors continue to do exactly what they are already doing
is a dangerous strategy indeed.
If you continue down the road you are on you will be counting on motivation to move the company forward. I cannot honestly recommend that as a way forward because business competition is not just a battle of strength and wills; it is also a competition over insights and competencies. My judgment is that motivation, by itself, will not give this company enough of an edge to achieve your goals.