In The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps Between Plans, Actions and Results,
author Stephen Bungay makes an audacious claim: Business in the 21st century
age of globalization and the Internet can learn much about strategy, leadership
and management from the 19th century Prussian army — and specifically two of
its great generals, Carl von Clausewitz and Helmuth von Moltke. Bungay is in a
unique position to write such a book as a long-time consultant with the Boston Consulting Group, Bungay is also an acclaimed military historian who has published books on the battles of Britain
and Alamein.

The Three Challenges

In studying the effectiveness of military strategy, Clausewitz, in his seminal tome, On War, blamed failures in
military strategy on internal friction — which caused a gap between planned
actions and actual actions — and external friction — which caused a gap between
desired outcomes and actual outcomes. In other words, because of internal
friction (lack of leadership or poor communication, for example), people didn’t
do what they were supposed to do; and because of external friction (which can
be anything from bad weather to unexpected reactions of the enemy), the actions
undertaken by military units didn’t lead to the expected results.

Bungay adapts and refines Clausewitz’s approach. When a company develops a
strategy for success, he writes, it develops a plan that describes what actions
the company will take in order to achieve its desired outcomes.

The problem is that there are gaps between these three elements: plans, actions
and outcomes. Because of a knowledge gap — the difference between what we need
to know and what we actually know — our plans don’t lead to the intended
outcomes. An alignment gap occurs between plans and actions when people don’t
take the actions that we planned for them to take. Finally, there is the
effects gap between actions and outcomes: Our actions don’t lead to the
outcomes we had expected.

Directed Opportunism

To close these gaps, Bungay turns to von Moltke, who created the Prussian
army’s basic operating model — still in effect today in Germany
and the model for America’s mission command
model. Bungay adapts von Moltke’s principles into an approach he calls
“directed opportunism.”

With directed opportunism, the plans created at the upper levels of companies
are not detailed strategies with often multiple objectives based on extensive
knowledge. Instead, they define and communicate a clear but more general intent
or objective for the company.

Communication is key because it’s at each of the levels below that intent is
translated into specific actions. In other words, each level receives a message
from the next level up that explains what needs to be achieved and why (the
intent), but it is up to the people at that level to decide what actions to
take. Thus, they decide how to align their actions to the strategic intent.
Finally, in implementing the actions, individuals have the freedom to adjust
their actions to adapt to different circumstances, although always guided by
the overall intent of the strategy. As a result, actions have a greater chance
of leading to the intended outcomes.

The principles behind directed opportunism are clear. There should be less
control from the top and more flexibility allowed for initiative and adjustment
to take place at the lower levels. However, there must also be clearly defined
and communicated goals or outcomes from the upper levels so that lower-level
initiatives do not take the company off the intended path of the strategy.

Directed opportunism is exemplified in an essay written by Prince Friedrich Karl
of Prussia, the commander of the Prussian army. A staff officer carries out an order
without question. A high-ranking general takes him to task, saying, “The
King made you a staff officer because you should know when not to obey.”
This is a key lesson for leaders at any level of an organization to take away
from Bungay’s teachings.

I’ve had opportunities to manage teams in both Mexico and Puerto Rico that had
authority to make decisions as they saw fit to achieve the goals of the
organization.  I couldn’t be there all the time and time was money in the world of manufacturing.

I would even, depending on the nature of the decision, sit back and allow the Directors to “make the call” on things I would
have decided on in my earlier years.  This gave me valuable insight as to their abilities to evaluate the
information, develop alternatives and decide on the one that generated the best
result.

The phrase “Sometimes it’s better to seek forgiveness rather than ask for permission”
rang true on my team.  The leaders certainly made their share of mistakes, but being in a position to take
ownership of business issues gave them priceless experience.

The Art
of Action is a fascinating read, and a thoughtful,
learned analysis of corporate strategy and leadership today. Although based on
history, this is not a book about the past. It is a guide for creating and
managing the future.