foumal of strategic Change, Vol 3. 189-199(1994)

Chow Hou WeeFaculty of Business Administration,National University of Singapore,Kent Ridge,Singapore 05 HSingapore

In recent years, military jargons, clich6s andanalogies have found their ways into thewritings of renowned journalists, executivesand scholars. For example, Enricho andKornbluth (1987) described how Pepsi wonthe 'Cola Wars' against Coke. Saporito (1992)documented that price wars would neverend for companies in the airline, automobile,computer, food, retailing and steel industriesbecause of over investments in the past.This had forced many companies in theseindustries to chase market share at all costs.Labich (1992a, 1992b) used the term 'SkyWars' to describe the battle for marketshare among the three leading aircraftmanufacturers, namely. Airbus, Boeing andMcDonnell Douglas. This was followedby Zellner (1992) who reported how the

Managing change:perspectives fromSun Tzu's Artof WarYyrofessor Wee offers some of the

JL lessons that can be learned fromthis 2300-year-old Chinese master ofstrategy, which has shaped thinkingin many Japanese and South Koreanboardrooms and is now widely readby managers in China. The articleexamines the business value of SunTzu's thinking in relation to:

• Managing change• Creating an adaptable organization• The role of strategy in the change

process

The lessons of Sun Tzu, who may wellhave been the foremost militarystrategist of all time, are of universalvalue. I

American airlines were killing each otherthrough price wars, and Labich (1992b) whodocumented how deregulation in the airlineindustry had led many of Europe's airlinesto war. More recently, Schlender (1993a)commented how the American manufacturersof personal computers had begun to attack theJapanese market with new spiffy machines,innovative software and sharply lower prices.

Various studies relating the application ofmilitary strategies to business practices hadbeen undertaken (e.g. Kotler and Singh,1981; Stripp, 1985). In a publication by Riesand Trout (1986), they chose to rely on theworks of German general Karl von Clausew itzto illustrate the parallels between militaryconcepts and marketing practices. In addition,Kotler et al. (1985), Lazer et al. (1985) and

190 C. H. Wee

Ohmae (1982) and many others had oftendescribed the Japanese economic conquest ofthe world very much like a well-orchestratedmilitary campaign. In a more recent article,Sullivan (1992) cited the works of Abegglen andStalk (1985) in describing Theory F (for fear)as one of the factors for the success of Japan.

Sun Tzu's Art of Waroffers valuable insightsfor the management of

modem businesses

Few writers, however, had given recognitionand acknowledgement to the oldest knownmilitary treatise in the world. Sun Tzu's ArtofWar^nd its relevance to strategic thinkingand business applications. Written in Chinacenturies before the birth of Christ, it is saidto contain the foundations on which allmodern military strategies are based. It isproposed that the achievement of Sun Tzu'sArt of War transcends the military context andoffers valuable insights for the managementof modern businesses.

There are other reasons for focusing onSun Tzu's works. With the opening of China,there is an increased interest to know theirthoughts, especially in the area of strategicmanagement and practices. This is necessaryif one wishes to do business with them. Here,it is significant to note that while the Chinesehave turned to the Western world for muchhelp in the area of training and consulting,they have also begun to actively researchtheir own classics so as to relate theirapplications to management. Sun Tzu's Artof War has emerged as a favourite, andtoday, there are already many publicationsin China that attempt to relate this classic tostrategic thinking and business practices(e.g. Li et al., 1984; National EconomicCommission, 1985). Such efforts are inaddition to many similar publications thatexist today in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan andSouth Korea. In fact. Sun Tzu is a highlyregarded guru among many corporatestrategists in these countries. If one subscribes

to the belief that the 21st century belongs tothe Asia-Pacific region, it is important to notethat its key players—Japan, Taiwan, SouthKorea, Hong Kong and Singapore—havemany cultural similarities that could be tracedto their roots in China. Together with China,they can form a significant economic forcethat few countries can ignore. Without doubt,there is a need for practitioners and researchersin the Western world to begin understandingthe philosophy and thinking of the orientalmindset. Sun Tzu's Art of War may providea useful start in this learning process.

A detailed exposition on how Sun Tzu'sworks can be applied to business practicescan be found in Wee (1989, 1990) and Weeet al. (1991). The purpose of this paperis to highlight some of the salient conceptsfrom the works of Sun Tzu that can beapplied to managing change. The importanceof managing change has been receivingincreasing attention from many quarters(Quinn, 1978). For example, the December13, 1993 issue of Fortune Internationalcarried a series of cover stories on thissubject, including those by Tichy (1993),Dumaine (1993) and Sherman (1993a, 1993b)that touched on a wide range of issues likethe need for changing values, organizationalstructures and new ways of doing business.

Managing change in war

Without doubt, any military campaign isfraught with changes once the war progresses.It is thus no surprise that the general wouldattempt to take all possible steps to ensurethat he can cope with the likely changes.These are done proactively prior to thecommencement of battle. Among variousproactive measures advocated by Sun Tzu,two are worth mentioning. The first is thatof detailed planning:

. . . With careful and detailed planning, onecan win; with careless and less detailedplanning, one cannot win. How much morecertain is defeat if one does not plan at all!From the way planning is done beforehand,we can predict victory or defeat.

Journal of Strategic Change, August 1994

Managing cbange 191

By detailed planning. Sun Tzu meant:

Know your enemy, know yourself, andyour victory will not be threatened. Knowthe terrain, know the weather, and yourvictory will be complete.

In addition, it also involves the requirementfor contingency planning. This principlewas well articulated by Sun Tzu when hediscussed the role of direct and indirectforces and manoeuvres:

That the army is able to sustain the attacksof the enemy without suffering defeats isdue to operations of the indirect and directforces and manoeuvres.

The second principle is the use ofintelligence:

The reason why the enlightened ruler andthe wise general are able to conquer theenemy whenever they iead the army andcan achieve victories that surpass thoseof others is because of foreknowledge(intelligence).

In fact. Sun Tzu expounded on theimportance of using human intelligence,and advocated espionage activities (seeWee etal., 1991, pp. 237-244). Of course,business espionage should be condemned andfrowned upon (Beltramini, 1986; Pooley,1982; Waller, 1992). However, to pretendthat business espionage does not exist wouldbe an exercise in futility and naivety. Ifanything, industrial espionage is rife andcommonly practised in the business world,especially in this post-Cold War era (Nelan,1993).

Besides espionage, it is important to pointout that there are many 'above the board'methods of gathering market and competitiveinformation that could be used for thedevelopment of business strategies—forexample, surveys on competitors and thevarious industries, market studies, and tradeand fact-finding missions (Eells and Nehemkis,1984). In today's business environment—

where competition is rife, consumer tastesare fast changing, and information technologybecoming more widespread—the need to relyon intelligence for effective decision-makingand dealing with changes has become moreeminent (Gordon, 1982; Attanasio, 1988;Bergeron and Raymond, 1992).

Adaptability in operations

Despite detailed planning through the use ofintelligence, the whole military campaignwill be subjected to change once the firstbatde is fought. This is because war conditionsare very dynamic, and it is near impossible topredict the exact outcome of every militarymovement. What is more important is to beable to cope with the changes as they comealong, and revise the military strategiesaccordingly. This is true even with moderntechnology. Take the example of the GulfWar. Despite the accuracy of the Americanmissiles, targets were missed and civiliancasualties inflicted. It is thus significantthat Sun Tzu advocated the principle ofadaptability in manoeuvres once the warbegins. There are three related conceptspertaining to adaptability — shaping andflexibility, innovativeness and use ofinitiative. i

Flexibility and shaping

It is precisely the need to cope with changethat Sun Tzu advocated the principle offlexibility and shaping in war:

The guiding principle in military tacticsmay be likened to water. Just as flowingwater avoids the heights and hastens to thelowlands, an army should avoid strengthsand strike weaknesses.

Just as water shapes itself according to theground, an army should manage its victoryin accordance with the situation of theenemy. Just as water has no constantshape, so in warfare there are no fixedrules and regulations.

Journal of Strategic Cbange, August 1994

192 C. H. Wee

Thus, the wise general is someone whois able to apply the principle of flexibilityso as to take advantage of the changingcircumstances in war. Note that one of themost remarkable statements is that there areno fixed rules and regulations when it comesto execution of plans. The general must

• The general must changehis strategies like the way

water conforms to thechanging terrain

change his strategies like the way waterconforms to the changing terrain. In otherwords, he has the ultimate authority todecide what he deems most appropriate,given the situation that confronts him.

In the same way, companies must learn tobe flexible in order to cope with the changingenvironment and competitive situations.Here, it is interesting to note that Japaneseproducts are known to be shaped accordingto the demands of the markets that they areselling to, even though the market size maybe small. For example, while the UnitedStates (US) ignored the markets in SoutheastAsia in the 1960s and 1970s, the Japanesecourted this part of the world enthusiasticallywith products that were designed specificallyfor them. Despite their huge succcessestoday, the Japanese have continued to beflexible in their product offerings to newermarkets in the Asia-Pacific region. Forexample, when China needed cars after theyopened up aggressively in the 1980s, theJapanese were prepared to do 'backwardengineering' in order to sell the Chinesecheap, big and efficient cars. In contrast, theWestern companies were reluctant to do so.The results of such flexible policies are verytelling by the size of Japanese market sharesin these countries. In fact, Kotler et al. (1985,p. 254) remarked that flexibility has been thevisible trademark of the Japanese and theyhave not engraved their strategies in stone.

Today, as the top US and Europeancompanies begin to close the quality gap

against Japanese products in recent years,Japanese manufacturers have shifted to flexiblemanufacturing systems and strategy as theirnew competitive weapon. They do this byfocusing on more and better product features,flexible factories that can accommodatevarying production orders and designs,expanded customer service, innovation andtechnological superiority (Stewart, 1992b;Taylor III, 1993).

Business situations are always very dynamicas they are affected by various factors—theconsumers, the competitors, the govemment,the general public, the state of technology,the state of the economy and so on. Tocompete successfully, the company must beadaptive to the changes in its environment,and must not be bound by past practices ortraditions. In fact, Bartlett and Ghoshal(1989) argued that the future transnationalcorporations, among other things, must beable to maintain organizational flexibility inorder to compete effectively. Their viewswere supported by Stewart (1992a).

There should not be any fixed rules onhow a company should go about developingits overseas markets. If one company cannotdo it alone, there is nothing to stop it fromjoining forces with other companies withsimilar interests, even if they are directcompetitors. Indeed, strategic alliances arebecoming an important development in theconduct of business today as they can alsoprovide for flexibility (Sherman, 1992). Infact, Toshiba, the oldest and third largestJapanese electronic giant has made strategicalliances a cornerstone of its corporatestrategy (Schlender, 1993b). As of 1993, ithad no less than 18 strategic partners in theUS, Europe, Canada, and even South Korea.In taking such a flexible approach, Toshibahas been able to enhance both its globalposition in technology and marketing.Besides Toshiba, many other Japanesecompanies have created strong partnershipsby investing in sagging European rivalcompanies (Rapoport, 1993). In doing so,they have created additional leverages forthemselves to compete in the future. Besidesthe Japanese, the Koreans are pursuing similar

Journal of Strategic Change, August 1994

Managing cbange 193

flexible strategies in their quest for worldmarket share (Kraar, 1992, 1993).

Innovative ness

A related concept to the principle of adapt-ability is that of innovativeness. It is importantto point out that while shaping and flexibilityare more reactive in that they flow accordingto the situation, innovativeness is moreproactive in that it attempts to dictate thesituation. According to Sun Tzu:

Therefore, do not repeat the tactics thatwon you a victory, but vary them accordingto the circumstances.

Thus like war, there is a need to constantlysearch for new and innovative ways ofmeeting the challenges offered by the everchanging circumstances in business. Inaddition, the use of new approaches will alsoprevent the competitor from anticipatingone's plans, as one becomes unpredictablethrough continual innovation. In doing so,it forces the other party to react to thechanges created by you. Innovativeness,therefore, means a need to search for newand different ways of doing things, and notto conveniently rely on past strategies. In thewords of Sun Tzu:

He must be able to change his methods andschemes so that no one can know hisintentions. He must be able to alter hiscamp-sites and marching routes so that noone can predict his movements.

It is interesting to note that innovativenessis not lacking amongjapanese companies. Asa nation, the Japanese have demonstratedthat innovative behaviour can be plannedsystematically and proactively. Despite theirtraditional handicaps such as the senioritysystem (which tends to muffle and muzzledebate and free expression) and general lackof individual creativity, they have never ceasedto amaze the world with their wide arrayof innovative products through concertedand well-organized teamwork. In fact, they

systematically make conscious efforts tomanage change. This, in effect, is very wellillustrated by the way Japanese companiesmanage planned obsolescence for productslike cars, hi-fi equipment, television, etc.They constantly bring out improved models,modified designs, new styles, additionalfeatures and a host of other new product-related attributes to phase out existingones. In fact, for many products like cars,television, home electronics and cameras,their product obsolescence cycles are typicallyhalf that of comparable products made byWestern companies.

Resourcefulness atthe point of decisionmaking is essential

Use of initiative

While innovativeness is a proactive, deliberateand systematic approach to managing change,the use of initiative requires both the proactiveand reactive dimensions. Initiative requiresthe individual to be very responsive tochanges to situations, as well as able to takepre-emptive action. Thus, resourcefulness atthe point of decision making is essential. Inaddition, the exercise of initiative is ofteninstantaneous and an intuitive act of theindividual who is faced with the decision. Infact. Sun Tzu even went as far as saying:

There are situations when the orders of theruler need not be obeyed.

Moreover, Sun Tzu gave an example of asituation when orders could be disobeyedand initiative used:

If the situation is one of victory, thegeneral must fight even though the rulermay have issued orders not to engage. Ifthe situation is one of defeat, the generalmust not fight even though the ruler maybave issued orders to do so.

Journal of Strategic Cbange, August 1994

194 C. H. Wee

In the same way, in the management ofchange, initiative is much needed. The chiefexecutive officer (CEO) or any senior managerfor that matter, must respond to the challengespresented by the change, and not shy awayfrom making a decision. At times, the decisionto be made may depart from corporateguidelines and plans, but if it is to the benefitofthe company, the senior manager must becapable of exercising his initiative to take thebold stand.

In essence, a company must encourage theflow of innovative ideas and the exercise ofinitiative on all fronts — from the conceptionof product/service ideas to the actualimplementation of marketing strategies.Pascale (1990) even argued for innovativeways of managing conflicts in order to stayahead of competition, while Naisbitt andAburdcne (1985) advocated innovative humanresource management and organization as thefuture corporate challenge. No matter what itis, it is important that at anytime whenopportunities arise as a result ofthe changingenvironment or other factors, the companymust be capable of capitalizing on them. Itmust consciously manage change, just likemany Japanese companies do (Mroczkowskiand Hanaoka, 1989). At times, it may alsoentail changes to plans that are already made.

To some extent, innovativeness and use ofinitiative are very much related to creativity.In recent years, creativity has been activelypursued by organizations and their corporateexecutives as a means to cope and managechange. For example, de Bono (1971) pro-pounded on lateral thinking for management,Ackoff (1978) wrote his famous book on theart of problem solving. Miller (1986) arguedfor the need to foster innovation at the pointof work and recently Yu (1990) proposed anintegrated theory of habitual domains as thebasis for forming winning strategies.

The role of strategyin the change process

The need to be adaptive in order to copewith the changing war conditions gives rise

to the importance of understanding therelationships between strategy, structure andbehaviour. In the words of Sun Tzu:

To control a large force in combat issimilar to that of a small force. It is a matterof formations and signals.

He went on further to say:

Order and disorder depends on organization.

Order and disorderdepends on organization

Implicit in these sayings is that structureactually breeds behaviour, regardless ofthesize of the army. As such, the way a generalorganizes his army would affect the behaviourofhis troops in battle. In the same way, theway a company is organized and structuredwill also determine the behaviour of theemployees. For example, if a company wantsto become international, it must be structuredin such a way so as to reward those employeeswith international experience. Otherwise, noone would want to work abroad.

What then determines structure? In war, itis always strategy. In other words, the strategymust be the genesis of any organizationaldesign and structure. Undeniably, with properfeedback, one s strategy could be modified.However, the starting point for any planningexercise in war has to be strategy. For example,in the 1991 war against Iraq, the US-ledforces decided on the strategy beforeembarking on how to organize for combat.In fact, General Norman Schwarzkopf washimself a product of the strategy.

There is a definitive requirement as towhy structure and organization must followthe crystallization of the strategy in war.First, there is a need ior flexibility. This isbecause battle conditions are quite fluid,and the general on the ground must begiven the maximum flexibility to organizeand restructure his troops and formationsdepending on the battle situations. Second,

Journal of Strategic Change, August 1994

Managing change 195

as battle conditions cbange, the general mustcbange bis strategy accordingly. In otberwords, he bas to constantly reorganizeaccording to bis strategy. Altbough he beginswith a battle plan, that plan can never be castin stone. He must constantly reorganize bistroops for battles as be changes bis plan(strategy) to meet the dynamic conditions ofwar. In sum, be bas to be very proactive andseize on any available opportunity to win.Tbis was true of ancient wars, and is stillapplicable today.

Interestingly, tbere is no lack of supportin the business literature for the relationshipbetween strategy and structure. For example.Chandler (1962) concluded tbat once acorporate strategy is in place, its structure willfollow. More recently Bartlett and Gboshal(1989, p. 20) argued that organizationalstructure sbould fit tbe strategic requirementof tbe business and tbe firm's dominantstrategic capability. Similar views wereexpressed by Lorange and Vancil (1976),Henderson (1979), Lorange (1980, 1982),Enderwick (1989) and Obmae (1989).Unfortunately, tbere are other scholars whocounter argue tbat it is often the other wayaround — tbat is, it is often the structure tbatdrives the strategy (e.g. Pascale, 1990, p. 100).Tbis lack of consensus on how strategyaffects structure or vice versa has affectedto some extent, the way many companiesmanage themselves for competition. In fact,even Japanese companies are discovering tbattheir bureaucratic structures are now affectingtbeir competitiveness (Scblender, 1993a).They bave begun to dismantle bureaucraticstructures, and instead organize tbeircompanies around their new strategies andtbe changing environment as advocatedby many writers like Dumaine (1991),Katzcnbacb and Smith (1993), and Kirkpatrick(1993).

Role of leadership in winninghearts and building teamwork

Underlying tbe use of military conceptsand strategies is an important fundamental

principle—the need to focus on tbe beart,and not the mind of management. Tbis isbecause war is basically ' irrational' andinvolves substantial and drastic change in tbebehaviour of the soldiers. It is one thing totrain under simulated conditions and againstan artificial' enemy. It is a totally differentexperience to be actually involved in thedirect destruction and killing of human lives.In essence, it can be very traumatic andemotional. As such, the management of tbetroops in preparation for war as well asduring combat becomes an important skillthat no shrewd general can ignore.

To begin witb, the general cannot rely onmaterial benefits to motivate bis troops.Instead, he bas to appeal to tbeir sense ofnational pride and loyalty. He appeals totheir emotions and feelings, and uses tbemoral cause as justification for aggression.For tbis reason, the general even goes downto bis troops and if needed, drinks from tbesame coffee mug and eats from tbe same messtin with his soldiers. In doing so, be winstbeir hearts whicb is very important forbuilding up comradeship and team spirit—ingredients so essential for winning wars.Indeed, no sbrewd general would think ofmotivating bis soldiers in combat with extrapay or bonus!

The need to focus on tbe beart brings tomind clearly the importance of leadershipand teamwork in the management of cbange.It is no surprise that Sun Tzu defined tbemoral influence of the ruler in war asfollows:

. . . that which enables the people tobe in perfect accord and harmony withtbe ruler, for which they are willing toaccompany him to life and death withouttbe fear of dangers.

On the general's leadership and teamwork,he said:

When tbe general regards his men asinfants, they will be willing to follow himthrough thick and thin. When be treatstbem like his beloved sons, tbey will bewilling to support bim unto deatb.

Journal of Strategic Change, August 1994

196 C H. Wee

Note that the ultimate test of teamwork andleadership is the willingness of the soldiersto sacrifice self interest to the extent ofwillingness to put down their lives for ahigher level goal. The essence of teamworkcan be seen by the following:

When the general is weak and lacksdiscipline, when training and instructionsare not clear, when the duties of officersand men are not distinct, and when theformations are slovenly, the result is utterdisorganization.

Winning the hearts does not mean bendingbackwards to the whims and fancies of thesoldiers. In fact, Sun Tzu offered the followingadvice:

If a general pampers his troops but isunable to use them; if he loves themexcessively but cannot exercise hiscommands; if his troops are disorderly buthe cannot discipline them; then they arelike a bunch of spoilt brats, and are useless.

It is no wonder that Sun Tzu mentioned thatthe general must possess qualities of wisdom,sincerity, benevolence, courage and strictness.These qualities are necessary as he has to leadby example. For this reason, the militarygeneral is one who must survive the tests ofthe rank and file and the vagaries of eachbattle. He is never parachuted into the army.Instead, he has to earn every rank throughblood, sweat and tears. It is no surprise thatwhen he reaches the top, he has already wonthe respect of his soldiers. Under such acircumstance, it becomes easier for him tomake as well as demand changes accordingto his judgement. This is because he hasalready earned the trust and confidence ofhis soldiers.

While it is very easy for anyone tocomprehend the need to focus on the heartin the management of an army for war, it isharder to translate that into managementof business. If anything, many Westerncompanies tend to develop policies thatappeal to the mind rather than the heart.

Managing the heart is more an art rather thana science. For example, there is a need to takea long-term perspective and the employee'scontributions have to be viewed over his lifetime. To appeal to the heart, there is a needfor strong social interactions, and the CEOhas to adopt a much more personal andpeople centred approach. When the heartcan be won over, the employees are likelyto be highly loyal and less likely to belured away by higher perks offered hy thecompetitors. In other words, they will findsatisfaction in working for the organizationas they tend to rely more on psychic rewards.The heart approach facilitates the cultivationof group values, which in turn, favoursthe development of team building andteamwork—ingredients so essential for themanagement of change.

In general, Japanese and many Asiancompanies tend to focus more on managingthe hearts of their employees. In contrast,Western companies, largely owing to theircultural influences, tend to focus more onmanaging the minds ofthe employees. Theydo this largely by higher salaries and perks.If special expertise is needed, they willnot hesitate to 'head hunt' for it, and thisincludes hiring the CEO. For example, IBMhired a new CEO in 1993 as it was feltthat there was no senior executive withinthe existing organization capable of doing thejob. Interestingly, despite the seeminglyelaborate 'head hunting' exercise, thecomputer industry did not appear to give thenew IBM CEO much respect (Dobrzynski,1993). In a nutshell, the Western approachtends to treat management more as a science,and adopts a much more clinical' approachin the way the organization is handled.

In business practice, the heart and mindare not mutually exclusive approaches.Rather, my arguments are that the Japaneseand Asian companies tend to pay moreattention to the heart while the Westerncompanies tend to be more mind driven.There is nothing wrong with being moremind-driven so long as a healthy balance canbe maintained. For example, if teamwork isnecessary to achieve success, then there

Journal of Strategic Cbange, August 1994

Managing change 191

fapanese and Asiancompanies tend to paymore attention to the

heart while the Westerncompanies tend to be

more mind driven

is a need to inject more beart into theorganization. Tbis is where I find muchof the recent literature on team buildingand teamwork lacking. Wbile much of tbisliterature tends to expound on tbe importanceand contributions of teamwork and teambuilding, tbey tend to treat tbe subject in arather 'clinical' manner (e.g. Dyer, 1987;Jobansen et al., 1991; Katzenbacb and Smitb,1993). Little attention is given to building upsocial bonds within tbe team—that is,focusing on building up tbe heart whicb is soessential to facilitate tbe management of change.

Ironically, wben one traces back into bistory,it was Mayo's (1933) classic Hawthorneexperiment tbat clearly demonstrated tbeemergence of the team idea in an organizedwork setting—one tbat operated witb tbebeart. In tbat well-documented Hawthorneexperiment, the group maintained highproductivity over a 5 year period largelybecause of psycbic rewards resulting from astrong team spirit. The leader of tbat groupmanaged by tbe heart, not tbe mind! In theprocess, he was able to create changes in tbegroup bebaviour that initially even confoundedMayo and his researchers. Mayo's workswere very much supported by McGregor(I960) when he wrote The Human Sideof Enterprise and Likert (1961) tbe author ofNew Patterns of Management. Perhaps, it istimely for Western executives to revisit someof tbese classic works to rediscover the needfor the beart in management.

ConclusionTbe analogy between war and business is afruitful exercise, but it is too often taken

for granted. Of course, tbere are limits to tbeanalogy between war and business in that tbeformer is an extreme situation, demandingexceptional responses and a suspension ofnormal life. War, after all, involves killingand being killed, and often allows for variousforms of behaviour, espionage and controlof tbe media for instance. Tbese activities areunlikely to be tolerated in peacetime. Evenallowing for the notion of a 'just war' onemay feel that a war mentality is not necessaryor desirable for a successful business life. Yet,it is equally difficult to deny tbat manymilitary concepts can be applied meaningfullyin business. In particular, tbey belp to developa mentality among corporate executives towin business wars. Tbus, Sun Tzu's Art ofWar, a treatise higbly regarded by manyAsian corporate strategists, may provide someinspirations in tbis direction.

Autobiographical note

Associate Professor Chow Hou Wee, PhD is Deanof the Faculty of Business Administration, Director ofthe School of Postgraduate Management Studiesat the National University of Singapore. He is also aDirector of the National Productivity Board, theTelecommunication Authority of Singapore and ApolloEnterprises l.td. He has over 150 publications in variouslocal, regional, and international journals andproceedings, and sits on several other professionalbodies and editorial boards of international journals.He has lectured and consulted extensively on theapplications of Sun Tzu's Art of War to business inAsia, Europe and the US, and is the senior author ofSun Tzu: War and Management. An extended versionof this article will appear in The International Reviewof Strategic Management, Vol. 5.

References

Abegglen, James C. and Stalk Jr, G. (1985).Kaisha. The Japanese Corporation, BasicBooks, New York.

Ackoff, Russell L. (1978). The Art of ProblemSolving, John Wiley, New York.

Attanasio, D. B. (1988). The multiple benefits ofcompetitor intelligence. The Journal ofBusiness Strategy, May/June, pp. 16-19.

Journal of Strategic Change, August 1994

198 C. H. Wee

Bartlett, Christopher A. and Ghoshal, Sumantra(1989). Managing Across Borders. TbeTransnational Solution, Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Beltramini, R. F. (1986). Ethics and the use ofcompetitive information acquisition strategies,foumal of Business Etbics, 5, pp. 307-311.

Bergeron, F. and Raymond, L. (1992). Planningof information systems to gain a competitiveadvantage, Journal of Small BusinessManagement, January, pp. 21-26.

Chandler, Alfred D. Jr. (1962). Stragety AsStructure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

de Bono, Edward (1971). Lateral Tbinkingfor Management, McGraw Hill, UnitedKingdom.

Dobrzynski, Judith H. (1993). Rethinking IBM,Business Week, October 4, pp. 44-35.

Dumaine, Brian (1991). The bureaucracy busters.Fortune International, 123(13), June 17,pp.26-34.

Dumaine, Brian (1993). Payoff from the newmanagement, fortune International, 128(15),December 13, pp. 49-52.

Dyer, William G. (1987) Team Building. Issuesand Alternatives, Addison-Wesley, Reading,Massachusetts.

Eells, Richard and Nehemkis, Peter (1984).Corporate Intelligence and Espionage,Macmillan Publishing Co., New York.

Endenvick, Peter (1989). Multinational corporaterestrueturing and international eompetitiveness,California Management Review, Fall,pp.44-58.

Enricho, Roger and Kornbluth, Jesse (1987).The other guy blinked: how Pepsi won theeola wars. World Executive Digest, April,pp. 44-48.

Gordon, I. H. (1982). Competitive intelligence—akey to marketplace survival, IndustrialMarketing, 67(11), November, pp. 69-75.

Griffith, Samuel B. (1982). Sun Tzu. The Art ofWar, 11 th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Henderson, Bruee (1979) Henderson onCorporate Strategy. Abt Books, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Johansen, Robert, Martin, Alexia, Mittman, Robert,Saffo, Paul, Sibbet, David and Benson, Suzyn(1991). Leading Business Teams, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

Katzenbach, Jon R. and Smith, Douglas, K. (1993).Tbe Wisdom of Teams. Creating tbe Higb-Performance Organization, Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Kirkpatrick, David (1993) Could AT & T rule theworld? Fortune Intemational, 127(10), May17, pp. 18-27.

Kotler, Philip, Eahey, Liam and Jatusripitak, S.(1985). Tbe New Competition, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Kotler, Philip and Singh, Ravi (1981). Marketingwarfare in the 1980 s,/ourwa/ of BusinessStrategy, Winter, pp. 30-41.

Kotter, John P. and Schlesinger, Leonard A.(1979). Choosing strategies for change.Harvard Business Review, 57(2), March-April,pp. 106-114.

Kraar, Louis (1992). Korea's tigers keep roaring.Fortune International, 125(9), May 4,pp. 24-28.

Kraar, Louis (1993). How Samsung grows so fast,Fortune International, 127(9), May 3,pp.16-21.

Labich, Kenneth (1992a). Airbus takes off.Fortune Intemational, 125(11), June 1,pp. 22-28.

Labich, Kenneth (1992b), Europe s sky wars.Fortune Intemational, 126(10), November 2,pp. 24-31.

Lazer, William, Murata, Shoji and Kosaka, Hiroshi(1985). Japanese marketing: towards a betterunderstanding, foumal of Marketing, 49(2),pp. 69-81.

Li, Shi Jun, Xian Ju, Yang andjia Rei, Tang (1984).Sun Tzu's Art of War and BusinessManagement (translated), Kwangsi PeoplesPress, China.

Likert, Rensis (1961). New Patterns of Manage-ment, McGraw Hill, New York.

Lorange, Peter (1980). Corporate Planning: AnExecutive Viewpoint, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey.

Lorange, Peter (1982). Implementation ofStrategic Planning, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey.

Lorange, Peter and Vancil, Richard F. (1976). Howto design a strategic planning system. HarvardBusiness Review, 54(5), September-October,pp. 75-81.

Mayo, Elton (1933). The human problems of anindustrial civilization. Division of Research,Graduate School of Business Administration,Harvard University, Boston.

McGregor, Douglas (I960). Tbe Human Side ofEnterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Miller, William C. (1986). Tbe Creative Edge:Fostering Innovation Wbere You Work,Addison-Wesley, U.S.A.

foumal of Strategic Cbange, August 1994

Managing change 199

Mroczkowski, Tomasz and Hanaoka, Masao (1989).Continuity and change in Japanese management,Human Resources, Winter, pp. 39-52.

Naisbitt, John and Ahurdene, Patricia (1985).Re-inventing the Corporation, Warner Books,Inc., New York.

National Economic Commission (1985). ClassicalChinese Thoughts and Modem Management(translated). Economic Management ResearchInstitute, Yunnan People's Publishing, China.

Nelan, Bruce W. (1993). A new world for spies,Time, }u\y 5, pp. 28-31.

Ohmae, K. (1982). The Mind of the Strategist:The Art of fapanese Business, McGraw-Hill,New York.

Ohmae, K. (1989). Planting for a global harvest.Harvard Business Review, 67(4), July-August,pp.136-145.

Pascale, Richard Tanner (1990). Managing OnThe Edge: How the Smartest Companies UseConflict to Stay Ahead, Simon and Schuster,New York.

Pooley, James (1982). Trade Secrets: How toProtect Your Ideas and Assets, Berkeley,California: Osborne, McGraw-Hill, U.S.A.

Quinn, James Brian (1978). Strategic change:logical incrementalism, Sloan ManagementReview, 20(1), Fall, pp. 7-21.

Rapoport, Carla (1993). Japan to the rescue.Fortune International, 128(9), October 18,pp. 30-34.

Ries, Al and Trout, Jack (1986). MarketingWarfare, McGraw-Hill Book Company, U.S.A.

Saporito, Bill (1992). Why the price wars neverend. Fortune International, 125(6), March 23,pp. 20-25.

Schlender, Brenton R. (1993a). PC wars inJapan, Fortune International, 127(14), July12, pp. 14-18.

Schlender, Brenton R. (1993b) How Toshibamakes alliances work. Fortune International,128(8), October 4, pp. 42-47.

Sherman, Stratford (1992). Are strategic alliancesworking? Fortune International, September21, pp. 33-34.

Sherman, Stratford (1993a). Are you as good as

tbe best in the world? Fortune International,128(15), pp. 47-48.

Sherman, Stratford (1993b). How will we livein tumult? Fortune International, 128(15),pp. 59-61.

Stewart, Thomas A. (1992a). The search fortbe organization of tomorrow. Fortuneinternational, May 18, pp. 53-58.

Stewart, Thomas A. (1992b). Brace for Japan'shot new strategy. Fortune International,September 21, pp. 24-32.

Stripp, William G. (1985). Sun Tzu, Musashi andMahan: tbe integration of Chinese, Japaneseand American strategic thought in internationalbusiness, Proceedings ofthe Inaugural Meetingof the Southeast Asia Region Academy ofInternational Business, pp. 109-118, TheChinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Sullivan, Jeremiah J. (1992). Japanesemanagement philosophies: from the vacuousto the brilliant, California ManagementReview, 34(2) Winter, pp. 66-87.

Taylor III, Alex (1993). Here comes Japan'scarmakers — Again, Fortune International,128(15), pp. 63-67.

Ticby, Noel M. (1993). Revolutionize yourcompany. Fortune International, 128(15),pp. 54-56.

Waller, Douglas (1992). The open bam door: U.S.firms face a wave of foreign espionage,Newsweek, May 4.

Wee, C. H. (1989). Planning for war and business:lessons from Sun Tzu, Pointer, Jan-Mar,pp. 3-20.

Wee, C. H. (1990). Battlegrounds and businesssituation: lessons from Sun Tzu, SingaporeBusiness Review, 1(1), pp. 24-43-

Wee, C. H , Lee, K. S. and Hidajat, B. W. (1991).Sun Tzu: War and Management, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, • • •

Yu, Po L. (1990). Forming Winning Strategies:An Integrated Theory of Habitual Domains,Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Zcllner, Wendy (1992). The airlines are killingeach other again. International BusinessWeek, June 8, p. 30.

Journal of Strategic Change, August 1994 CCC 1057-9265/94/040189-11© 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd