Strategy--Structure-and-Behaviour.docx

Strategy, Structure and BehaviourOne of the most important aspects in the conduct of war isthe relationship between strategy, structure and behaviour.In fact, the following phrases by Sun Tzu are veryilluminating:To manage a large force in combat is similar to that of asmall force. It is a matter of organisation.To control a large force in combat is similar to that of asmall force. It is a matter of formations and signals.Implicit in these two quotations is that size is not afactor in management and control of an army. What is moreimportant is the way the army is organised and structured.This is the same with business organisations. I have oftenheard businessmen making remarks such as they wish theircompanies are small. This is because if the company issmall, as a boss, he knows everything. There are no labourproblems, and hence no labour pains! On the other hand, Ihave also heard businessmen wishing that they hope theircompanies are large. This is because if the company is big,he (as the boss) can afford to hire graduates andprofessionals to work for him. He can then have more timeto play golf and pursue other interests and hobbies.Interestingly, the issue is not of size. Rather, theeffectiveness and efficiency of any company or institutiondepend largely on how it is organised and structured. Thisis supported by the following saying by Sun Tzu :Order and disorder depends on organisation.Thus, the way a military general organises his army wouldaffect the behaviour of the troops in battle. In the sameway, the way a company is organised and structured will alsodetermine the behaviour of the employees. For example, if acompany wants to become international, it must be structuredin such a way so as to reward those employees withinternational experience. In other words, those withoverseas experience must enjoy a premium when it comes topromotion and rewards. Otherwise, no one would want to workoverseas.Some years ago, a senior bank executive incharge of publicrelations (PR) asked me for advice on how to justify theactivities of his PR department. I told him bluntly thatthe survival of his PR department depends largely on themagnanimity of his chief executive officer (CEO). I furthertold him that for his PR department to do well, he mustreport directly to the CEO as opposed to the senior officerincharge of marketing. This is because in the PR area, alot of spending has no immediate nor direct returns. Infact, it is very difficult to determine the relationshipbetween any increase in sales to that of PR activities. PRactivities are definitely different from those in marketingwhereby its expenses on advertising and promotion are allsales-related. Thus, if the PR person were to report to themarketing manager, the outcomeis not difficult to predict- PR activities will endup with step-child treatment. Yetin todays highly competitive environment, the need foreffective PR programmes cannot be overlooked.What, then, determines structure? In war, it is alwaysstrategy. In other words, the strategy must be the genesisof any organisational design and structure. Undeniably, noorganisation starts off with no structure. The point is,when it comes to any new initiatives or programmes, thestrategy must be designed first. The appropriate supportstructure and systems can then be put in place. It is justlike in military campaigns. No army in the world isorganised without a structure. If anything, the army isprobably one of the most structured organisations around.However, when it comes to planning for war, the startingpoint for the whole exercise begins with defining andoutlining the strategy (or battle plan and goals). Forexample, in the 1991 war against Iraq, the United States-ledforces decided on the strategy first before embarking on howto organise for combat. Otherwise, the United States wouldhave to ship its entire army to the Gulf, including thenPresident George Bush! After all, as the President, he wasthe commander-in-chief. Of course, in reality, we all knowthat this was not the case. In fact, in the 1991 Gulf War,the United States experimented with many ways of organisingand structuring their troops for war, depending on thestrategies concerned. Even General Norman Schwarzkopf washimself a product of overall strategy.There are many reasons why structure and organisation mustfollow the crystallisation of the strategy in war. Firstly,there is a need for flexibility. This is because battleconditions are quite fluid, and the general on the groundmust be given the maximum flexibility to organise andrestructure his troops and formations depending on thebattle situations. At the same time, battle conditions arefilled with uncertainty. Despite the best militaryintelligence and analyses, the war environment is dynamicand there is an urgent need and requirement to tailor thestrategy according to the situation of the battlefield.Thus, the general must be given the maximum leeway toreorganise and restructure his troops.Secondly, as battle conditions change, the general mustchange his strategy accordingly. In other words, he has toconstantly reorganise according to his strategy. Althoughhe begins with a battle plan, that plan can never be cast instone. He must constantly reorganise his troops for battlesas he changes his plan (strategy) to meet the dynamicconditions of war. These changes are also necessitated as aresult of casualties when the war progresses. In sum, hehas to be very proactive and seize on any availableopportunity to win. At the same time, he will be able totackle the risks and dangers more effectively. Thisphilosophy of shaping according to the changes on thebattleground was true of ancient wars, and is stillapplicable today. In sum, the relationships betweenstrategy, structure and behaviour can be illustrated by thefollowing diagram: | STRATEGY(Goals, objectives and plans) | | STRUCTURE(Organisation) | | BEHAVIOUR(Results, Outcome) Interestingly, when it comes to business organisations, wetend to forget about these relationships. We often let thestructure dictate the strategy regardless of the changes inthe business environment. Unfortunately, an organisationstructure can get fossilised over time and develop into ahighly bureaucratic institution. As a result, instead ofmoving forward, it retards progress and cease to be alearning organisation. It avoids risks and seek to takedecisions only in areas in which it is comfortable with.Such an approach is perhaps understandable if the businessenvironment is very stable with few changes. However, thisis far from the truth today.With the economic and financial turmoils that areaffecting the region, I would seriously urge companies tore-examine their strategies to ensure that they are able towithstand the challenges ahead. If new strategies arerequired, companies must be bold enough to adopt them andchange their organisations accordingly. In other words, anexisting organisation or structure should not be viewed asconstraints to change if the strategy dictates that thechange is necessary. In this aspect, it is very hearteningto note that the government has started a comprehensivereview of our banking system in order to ensure itscompetitiveness in the global economy. In the process, somesacred cows may have to be done with, and there may besignificant changes to the banking industry. For example,mergers as a strategy may be the way to go to ensure thatour banks can grow bigger and stronger so as to counterstiff international competition. This would meansubstantial changes to the ways banks and other financialinstitutions are organised and structured in Singapore.The banking industry is only one such example of howchanges in strategies may dictate the need to reorganise andrestructure. Many other industries in Singapore face thesame challenge. While changes are often resisted (more sowhen the stakeholders concerned are comfortable withexisting structures), they are nonetheless necessary for anyindividual, organisation and society to improve andprogress. The current economic crisis perhaps provides theimpetusfor this to take place. After all, any shrewdstrategist would always focus on the opportunities thatprovide the breakthroughs in a crisis rather than bethreatened by the danger.(The writer is Professor of Business Policy; Dean, Facultyof Business Administration; Director, Graduate School ofBusiness, National University of Singapore & a resourcepanellist of SPHs Chinese Newspapers.)战略、结构和行为两军交战，一个最重要的环节是怎样处理好战略、结构和行为三者的关系。事实上，孙子以下的说法很发人深省。“凡治众如治寡，分数是也。”“斗众如斗寡，形名是也。”大小不是组织指挥的重要因素这两句话清楚说明了管理和指挥军队时，大小不是一个因素，较重要的是军队的组织和结构。商业机构也是如此。我经常听到商人说，希望自己经营的是小公司。因为公司小，老板就可以无事不知。没有工人惹的麻烦，事业起步时也就少点头痛！另一方面，我也常听到商人说他们希望自己的公司大。因为大才请得起大学生和专业人士来替自己卖力，好让自己有更多空闲时间打高尔夫球，做自己感兴趣的事或搞其他嗜好。关键不在大小，这点很有意思。一家公司或机构的实力及效率如何，很大程度上，还是要看它的组织和结构。孙子以下这句话，又是一个证明：“治乱，数也。”所以，一个主帅怎样组织他的军队，会影响这支军队在战场上的行为。同样的，公司的组织和结构形态，也决定了它属下雇员的行为。举例来说，一家公司如果要走向国际，就必须确立一种“奖赏国际经验”的结构。换句话说，在擢升和制定薪俸时，有海外经验的雇员一定要多打几分。不然，没有人愿意被派出国。好几年前，一名主管公关部门的银行高级执行员问我，要怎样证明给人家看，公关部的工作不是可有可无的？我直截了当回答：他的部门的存活率，很大程度上取决于他的执行总裁有多大量。我进一步告诉他，公关部门要有所作为，就得直接向总裁而不是负责行销的主管汇报。理由是公关领域里有很多花费，是没有直接或马上看得到回报的。事实上，你很难确定销售量上涨了，和公关活动究竟有