Strategy, Structure and Behaviour_英语论文 |
| 论文作者：佚名 论文来源：不详 论文发布时间：2006-6-16 0:41:25 论文发布人：chjchjchj |
 减小字体
 增大字体
One of the most important aspects in the conduct of war is
the relationship between strategy, structure and behaviour.
In fact, the following phrases by Sun Tzu are very
illuminating:
"To manage a large force in combat is similar to that of a
small force. It is a matter of organisation."
"To control a large force in combat is similar to that of a
small force. It is a matter of formations and signals."
Implicit in these two quotations is that size is not a
factor in management and control of an army. What is more
important is the way the army is organised and structured.
This is the same with business organisations. I have often
heard businessmen making remarks such as they wish their
companies are small. This is because if the company is
small, as a boss, he knows everything. There are no labour
problems, and hence no labour pains! On the other hand, I
have also heard businessmen wishing that they hope their
companies are large. This is because if the company is big,
he (as the boss) can afford to hire graduates and
professionals to work for him. He can then have more time
to play golf and pursue other interests and hobbies.
Interestingly, the issue is not of size. Rather, the
effectiveness and efficiency of any company or institution
depend largely on how it is organised and structured. This
is supported by the following saying by Sun Tzu :
"Order and disorder depends on organisation."
Thus, the way a military general organises his army would
affect the behaviour of the troops in battle. In the same
way, the way a company is organised and structured will also
determine the behaviour of the employees. For example, if a
company wants to become international, it must be structured
in such a way so as to reward those employees with
international experience. In other words, those with
overseas experience must enjoy a premium when it comes to
promotion and rewards. Otherwise, no one would want to work
overseas.
Some years ago, a senior bank executive incharge of public
relations (PR) asked me for advice on how to justify the
activities of his PR department. I told him bluntly that
the survival of his PR department depends largely on the
magnanimity of his chief executive officer (CEO). I further
told him that for his PR department to do well, he must
report directly to the CEO as opposed to the senior officer
incharge of marketing. This is because in the PR area, a
lot of spending has no immediate nor direct returns. In
fact, it is very difficult to determine the relationship
between any increase in sales to that of PR activities. PR
activities are definitely different from those in marketing
whereby its expenses on advertising and promotion are all
sales-related. Thus, if the PR person were to report to the
marketing manager, the outcome is not difficult to predict
-- PR activities will endup with step-child treatment. Yet
in today's highly competitive environment, the need for
effective PR programmes cannot be overlooked.
What, then, determines structure? In war, it is always
strategy. In other words, the strategy must be the genesis
of any organisational design and structure. Undeniably, no
organisation starts off with no structure. The point is,
when it comes to any new initiatives or programmes, the
strategy must be designed first. The appropriate support
structure and systems can then be put in place. It is just
like in military campaigns. No army in the world is
organised without a structure. If anything, the army is
probably one of the most structured organisations around.
However, when it comes to planning for war, the starting
point for the whole exercise begins with defining and
outlining the strategy (or battle plan and goals). For
example, in the 1991 war against Iraq, the United States-led
forces decided on the strategy first before embarking on how
to organise for combat. Otherwise, the United States would
have to ship its entire army to the Gulf, including then
President George Bush! After all, as the President, he was
the commander-in-chief. Of course, in reality, we all know
that this was not the case. In fact, in the 1991 Gulf War,
the United States experimented with many ways of organising
and structuring their troops for war, depending on the
strategies concerned. Even General Norman Schwarzkopf was
himself a product of overall strategy.
There are many reasons why structure and organisation must
follow the crystallisation of the strategy in war. Firstly,
there is a need for flexibility. This is because battle
conditions are quite fluid, and the general on the ground
must be given the maximum flexibility to organise and
restructure his troops and formations depending on the[1] [2] [3] 下一页 colspan="2" align='right' class="Article_tdbgall">
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ∷相关论文评论 |
（评论内容只代表网友观点，与本站立场无关！） [查看发表评论...] | |
|
|
| |
 站内广告 |
 | |
|
| 站内搜索 |
| |
| 栏目导航 |
| |
|
|
| 本月热门 |
| |
|
|
| 本日热门 |
| |
|
|
|
设为首页
加入收藏
联系我们
相关论文