|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Wisdom from the First Management Consultant, 15 Feb 2006
In recent years, a great deal of nonsense has been published concerning similarities between the military battlefield and the business world. Authors frequently invoke military terms such as "attack", "ambush", "pre-emptive strike", "blitzkrieg" (or "blitz"), "no man's land", "chain of command", "firepower", "guerrilla", "kamikazi", "overkill", and "scorched-earth policy." Amidst all the other books in which forced comparisons are made, Mark McNeilly has written Sun Tzu and the Art of Business. He includes in his book the original (and superb) translation of The Art of War by Samuel B. Griffith.Time and again, McNeilly stresses (as does Sun Tzu) the absolute importance of personal character. Respect and trust are earned, not conferred by title or decree. It remains for leaders to formulate the correct strategies as well as those tactics needed to implement them. It remains for leaders to allocate resources only where they will achieve the greatest possible success at the lowest acceptable cost. Whether the competition is on a battlefield or in a marketplace, the six principles discussed by McNeilly are appropriate to whatever strategy or strategies may be needed. Historically, the most successful armies and the most successful companies have shared much in common: meticulous preparation, superb timing, speed, maximum use of resources where they will have the greatest impact, sufficient intelligence on opponents, mobility, flexibility, and (above all) resolve. In Sun Tzu and the Art of Business , McNeilly provides a brilliant analysis of six specific principles (first set to writing almost 2,500 years ago) which, he correctly suggests, will enable all manner of organizations to formulate appropriate strategies for the New Millennium. This is a solid, eloquent, sharply-focused book. Unlike so many other authors who force analogies between war and business, McNeilly respects the basic (indeed obvious) differences between them while explaining how certain principles are relevant to both.
|