The Principles of War underpin military doctrine and conduct, they have been determined as a result of experience in conflict by examining the key components present in all successful military operations. As such, these principles can be applied to the conduct of more general, commercial and business activities to enhance the likelihood of success. Ergo, they can be considered as the Principles of Winning. Application of the principles alone does not guarantee success; however, failure to adhere to any of them will almost certainly guarantee failure in battle.

Selection and maintenance of the aim is making absolutely clear, precisely what is to be achieved (by whom, when and why) to ensure all concerned remain focused and all associated actions are co-ordinated. The aim must be understood and fully accepted by all involved. All activity must be aimed at achieving and contribute towards achieving the aim and it is important to understand in reality the aim may (will) change as the battle progresses.

Maintenance of morale will be crucial in determining the outcome of combat in the event of all things being equal, ie. when no side has a clear advantage. Irrespective of context and situation – well motivated people with high morale perform better than those without. Good morale can be the difference between success and failure; morale and motivation are the responsibility of leaders.

Security within any military context is generally obvious; in the business context the principle of security is concerned with managing all the essential risks necessarily taken to achieve an outcome. This includes (say) confidentiality, copyright, financial constraints, succession planning, etc. as much as the more obvious health and safety in operations. Security is as much about facilitating and safeguarding the bold moves which gain competitive advantage as it is about looking after routine business.

Surprise is about gaining advantage by doing the unexpected; it is the deliberate ‘wrong footing’ of the enemy (competition) to bring about his/her demise. Creativity, courage and speed are the key ingredients to surprise and as such need to be nurtured and developed as an organisational attitude. In a business context the ‘enemy’ may be a competitor, a specific situation or set of circumstances.

Offensive action is about proactive, deliberate action aimed at winning through in order to achieve the stated aim – exploiting advantage, opportunity and strength to accomplish the task. Again, this is as much an organisational attitude as anything else. To understand the nature of this principle as a ‘mind set’ consider polar views of defining business success in the current ‘economic climate’ presented in this question. Is success about avoiding failure or achieving stated objectives irrespective of prevailing circumstances? Offensive action is proactively doing what is required to succeed; it is not about accepting mediocrity or avoiding failure.

Concentration of force is about applying decisive force and effort at the most decisive place and time to secure victory in battle as no army can be the best at everything all the time. In the business world this principle is about achieving the right effect in the right location to ensure the desired outcome; for example (say) timing and targeting of investment to yield the best possible return. Rarely, if ever, will the opportunity of the right force being present at the right time in the right place present itself; concentration of force is a managed deliberate act of choice.

Economy of effort is self evident; it is about efficiency in all you undertake. Essentially, it is concerned with understanding the nature and effect of attrition on the conduct of enduring campaigns. It is about shrewd decision making, careful preparation and squeezing all you can from your resources and assets in order to retain sufficient reserves to deal with contingencies and exploit opportunities as they arise. In business this is about (say) spending as little as possible on those items which do not contribute directly to the main aim in order to direct revenue where it will be more effective in achieving the aim. This is not to be confused with ‘cost cutting’.

Flexibility, attitudinal and organisational flexibility, is required to be able to recognise when change is necessary and to change when needed. This requires strength of character and moral courage to change or modify a plan or course of action when the existing one is doomed to failure. The military maxim ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy unchanged’ is borne from hard earned experience, and understanding where the fine line lies between dogged determination to succeed and sheer ‘bloody minded’ dogma leading to failure.

Co-operation is about ensuring unity of effort to achieve a shared outcome and accessing the combined attributes of diversity. The challenge is to overcome inherent disposition to favour a single perspective or approach and inevitably necessitates compromise between those involved. In an organisation, co-operation is concerned with both interpersonal actions and interdepartmental activities. There is very little to no room for significant individual, personal gain in an organisation if achieving organisational aims has primacy.

Sustainability is about ensuring longevity of both operations and effect and, as such, is primarily to do with long term logistical support to the enduring operation in a military context. For example, having the resources and support mechanism in place to ensure the commander can deliver (say) a defined number of missiles at a given rate throughout the expected duration of the battle and beyond. The business parallels are relatively easy to draw; for example, the supply chain is in place and has sufficient funding allocated to ensure enough pressings of the right type arrive at the factory every day for the expected duration of a production run. Sustainability requires dedicated and often ‘inglorious’ work, detailed analysis and application to task which require attributes and skills difficult to find and attract in business.

There is no order of precedence in applying the above principles after the first, selection and maintenance of the aim. The key is all are applied in order to avoid otherwise inevitable failure. Success also involves and requires the presence of other factors and circumstances – not least of which is an element of good fortune (or luck).

The Harvard Business Review (HBR) published an interesting article in 2009 entitled ‘Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis’ which, in my opinion, remains a worthwhile read and is particularly interesting on two counts.

Firstly, it was published over a year after the time generally acknowledged as the start of our prevailing economic situation. I use the word prevailing rather than current because as we draw to the end of 2011 the current forecasts for 2012 offer little optimism or hope of change for the better. The HBR article refers to ‘the current crisis’ in 2009 and forecasts economic crisis as the future norm existing beyond the recovery from recession. For me, as we enter the fifth consecutive year of ‘current crisis’, this poses the question ‘double dip’ or new economic environment?

Secondly, specialising in leadership, strategy and cohesion; the prevailing economic environment provides opportunities which simply do not exist in a benign situation. As much as regularity, dependability and certainty instil confidence they are the arena of the manager; whereas, irregularity, challenge and uncertainty provide opportunities not otherwise available to a leader. No amount of tweaking of financial mechanisms, directives or policy changes are likely to impact sufficiently on global competition, political instability, energy concerns and climate issues to remove risk and uncertainty.

So what should we do? ‘Batten down the hatches’ and rely on the same old measures and techniques that got us where we are today whilst hoping someone will ‘fix’ something somewhere to make all things good again? Or realise leadership and organisational adaptability are required to overcome the relentless challenges of our ‘new economic environment’? The problem is this, as difficult as the former may be it is undoubtedly a much easier option than the behavioural and organisational change required by the latter. Either way, the outcome is not guaranteed success though one course of action is more likely to succeed than the other.

The message in the HBR article referred to does not appear to have been popular at the time and I doubt it will be today. Perhaps because there is no ‘spoonful of sugar’ offered with the medicinal advice therein. This said, it remains worth reading all the same on http://hbr.org/2009/07/leadership-in-a-permanent-crisis/ar/1

Who in business truly understands what risk is and how to manage it? Not many I would suggest given the recent crisis in banking and even fewer when it comes to resolving national debt levels. Risk has to become better managed by businesses and politicians if we are to avoid the full effects of the current financial climate.

Risk is key in assessing opportunity as without risk business opportunities would not exist. Everything would be obvious and therefore every opportunity would be seized instantly without fear of failure. Well, human nature does not function that way! Humans are naturally risk averse, our survival instincts steer us away from perceived danger in order to protect us and in doing so they prevent us from exploiting opportunities using our innate intellect to manage and mitigate the risk. It is only when we are forced to take risks that we bring our excellent risk management potential to the fore.

However the national picture is somewhat different national risk now that’s something we leave to the experts  expecting them to use rigour and expertise in their deliberations. Unfortunately many of today’s politicians are not expert and many are less than rigorous in their managing of national financial risk!  Some are just politically irresponsible scoring political points when there is a national debt crisis.

Personal opportunities exist in all our lives and yet we  nearly always shy away from them. We want to be popular, we want to look good, we want to conform and to be correct.  We want to be recognised and rewarded and those actualisation’s are normally associated with conformity rather than originality.  Yet being odd pays in today’s entrepreneurial world as risk takers reap the greatest rewards. Our herd instincts our desire for popularity drive the majority of us away from risk naturally and hence how many times have we not seized an obvious opportunity for fear of failure!

If as individuals we don’t take risks there is very little chance of  business organisations taking risk. The consequences don’t just affect me but all those around me. I do not want to be blamed by those closest to me for strategic failure. Recently businesses have not needed to take risks hence risk mitigation is a lost art to many organisations. Yet business leaders are paid to judge and mitigate risk. Today’s business leaders need to take risks and they need to understand those risks, to identify the warning signs that pre-empt failure. Life is risky and in extreme times life becomes more risky.  Yet  as we enter a global recession no leader seems able to grasp the nettle and seize the opportunity; rather they would follow like lemmings other organisations into the economic precipice.

Politics are a totally different matter and it is here where some of the finest aspects of democracy are exposed as the desire to conform so necessary as an elected politician prevents daring and risk mitigating  leaders from ever achieving political greatness. Bring on the benign dictator or the enlightened autocrat for they are the ones who will light the path to economic recovery. They would take risks and their enlightened approach would ensure that in exercising their judgement they had mitigated the risk  to their people and managed it accordingly to ensure success.  As true leaders they would focus on success rather than avoiding failure. Tough times need tough decision makers who may not choose to conform. The only issue is democracy after all a leader cannot lead without the  peoples’ mandate and yet the majority of the people will always vote for the politician or party who holds the middle ground .

Businesses are the same and businesses now need to be original in their strategic concepts if they are to lead others away from global recession. Strong leadership, strategic vision,  opportunity exploitation and risk mitigation are all essential characteristics required of today’s business and political leaders and yet they are the characteristics that have  been absent when strategic failures are analysed.