A comparative study of Western strategic management theory and practices and classical Chinese military works on strategy

This research seeks to examine and describe the relationship that exists between three distinct vertices within the triangulation formed by: (1) Contemporary Western strategic management theory; (2) The strategic management practices of experienced Australian businesspersons, and; (3) Classical Chinese military strategy. The preliminary aim of the research is to describe the relationship that exists within the triangulation, however, the ultimate goal is to consider whether such examination may provide an alternate framework for strategic management thought. The process of comparison required that each of the individual vertices be examined within their own right while also ensuring that a common basis for such comparison between the vertices is built. Such commonality was achieved by considering five central questions at each vertex, the questions were: (1) How do you decide what action to take? (2) What purpose do strategies fulfil? (3) Who are the best people to decide what should be done? (4) When considering what to do, is there a particular base you always come back to? (5) Are there certain traits/attributes, which make a business more competitive? Accordingly, the research proceeded in a circular fashion and provided the following contributions to knowledge, a: (1) Critical review and summary of contemporary Western Strategic Management theory at a macro level; (2) Description of the strategic management practices of experienced Australian businesspersons drawn from both qualitative research (interviews) and quantitative research (survey questionnaires) initiated from the summary of Western theory, and; (3) Critical review and summary of classical Chinese military works of strategy initiated from the summary of Western theory and practices. In addition the research drew the following conclusions: (1) From the identification of each of the vertices within the triangulation a comparative pattern described as evolutionary was noted. It was considered that the classical Chinese theory provided an integrated and consistent approach to strategy that was, despite its origin, applicable to the contemporary business scene. While Western strategic theory was found to be fragmented, inconsistent and in a form not readily applicable to the same business scene. The practices of experienced Australian businesspersons were found to be consistent with Western theory, but also in some respects more developed than Western theory and further along the evolutionary trail toward classical Chinese theory. (2) The more evolved state of classical Chinese theory is attributed to the fact that it was developed and codified over some 1200 years in extremely harsh conditions that did not forgive mistakes and had survived a further 2000 years of market use, whereas Western theory is a comparative infant at only 40 years of age. In addition, the dominant philosophy that was present at the time of the formation of classic Chinese theory lends itself to the creation of strategic thinking. It can also be said that the traditional dominant modes of Western thinking arising from Judaeo-Christian and even early Greek thinkers do not underwrite a pattern strategic thought that is effective in the contemporary business world. (3) The classical Chinese system is one that has identified the systemic issues that exist in competitive environments. The authors in this field have also developed consistent paradigms over its 1200 year history of practical testing. This system recognises that competition is not a science but an art and as such there are certain skills that must be mastered and natural rules that should be followed. Further, that ultimate victory depends solely upon the ability of the strategists. There is no one method, there is no sustainable advantage, there is no certainty; there is only continual change and human effort. (4) Comparatively, Western thinkers tied to their economic imperatives seek the ability to control and determine the best solution that may be applied repeatedly. Finally, the projection forward of the strategic thought identified through the comparison gave rise to a strategic management model that may be divided into systemic and tactical considerations. The systemic issues revolved around the characteristics that were necessary to build an organisation that would be capable of effective competitiveness and strategic thinking. These systemic issues focused on the worthiness of leaders and the relationship they built with their people. The tactical considerations relate to interaction with competitors and positioning oneself in the change continuum to ensure victory in a dynamically changing environment.