UNIT71. Several leading modern business leaders seem, surprisingly, to downplay the importance of strategy. You can make too much fuss about strategy, they imply--- you have a few clear options; just choose one and get on with it. is it really that simple?2. “Strategy is straightforward---just pick a general direction and implement like hell.”Jack Welch, for example---the chairman and CEO of the USA’s General Electric Company; the man who grow the company from a market capitalization of $27 billion to a $140 billion, making GE the largest and most valuable company in the world. he must know a thing or two about strategy. But here’s what he says: “In real life, strategy is actually very straightforward. You pick a general direction and you implement like hell.”Or Allan leighton, the man who was recruited by Archie Norman to help res cue the UK’s ailing Asda supermarket chain, and went on to build the company into one of Britain’s most successful retailers. “Strategy is important,” says Leighton, “but it is a compass, not a road map. It tells you in which direction you are heading, but the important bit is how you get there.”Or Louis Gerstner, the man who rescued IBM in the 1990’s when the struggling mainframe supplier was about to be driven into extinction by the new, smaller and more agile personal computer manufacturers. “It is extremely difficult to develop a unique strategy for a company; and if the strategy is truly different, it is probably highly risky. Execution really is the critical part of a successful strategy. Getting it done, getting it done right, getting it done better than the next person is far more important than dreaming up new visions of the future.”3. So strategy is simple. And having an ingenious new strategy is less important than carrying it out successfully. In fact it might be dangerous. It that right?Let’s look at one last quote from Mr. Welch. “When I became CEO in 1981, we launched a highly publicized initiative: be number one or number two in every market, and fix, sell or close to get there. This was not our strategy, although I’ve often heard it descri bed that way.It was a galvanising mantra to describe how we were going to do business going forward. Our strategy was much more directional. GE was going to move away from businesses that were being commoditized toward businesses that manufactured high-value technology products or sold services instead of things.”Grand strategy versus strategy4. I would argue that these CEO’s blue chip corporations are taking a slightly Olympian view of the concept of “strategy.” Let’s call what hey are talking about “grand strategy” a strategy, but in the overarching sense, like the American car industry saying that they are going to move out gas-guzzlers and into smaller, more fuel-efficient models. 1.一些领先的现代企业领导人似乎，奇怪的是，淡化战略的重要性。
你可以对策略太过计较，他们暗示---你有几个明确的选择，只需选择一个，并应对它就可以了。
难道真的那么简单吗？2. “策略很简单- 只需选择一个大方向，然后拼命地实施。
”例如- 美国的通用电气公司董事长兼首席执行官杰克·韦尔奇，把市场资本增长从270亿美元升到1400亿美元，使得GE成为世界上的最大和最有价值的公司。
他必须对战略略知一二。
但这是他说的：“在现实生活中，战略其实很直截了当。
你选择一个大方向，然后拼命地实现它。
”或者阿伦.雷特顿，被阿奇诺曼所聘用，以帮助拯救英国疲弱的阿斯达连锁超市，并继续将公司建设成英国最成功的零售商之一的人是这样看待战略的：“战略是非常重要的，”他说，“但它是一个指南针，而不是一个地图。
它会告诉你，你正朝着哪个方向前进，但重要的一点是你如何到达那里。
”或者路易斯.格斯特纳，在1990年的时候挽救IBM，当时这个苦苦挣扎的主机供应商即将被新的，更小的，更灵活的个人电脑制造商所淘汰。
他眼中的战略是：“对一个公司来说发展一个独一无二的战略是极其困难的；如果战略是真的不同，那么它可能是极其危险的.执行确实是一个成功的战略的重要组成部分。
做完它，做对它，做得比别人好远比憧憬未来更重要。
“3.因此策略很简单。
具有独创性的新战略没有成功地实现它重要。
事实上，这可能是危险的。
是这样吗？让我们来看看韦尔奇说过的一句话。
“当我在1981年成为首席执行官[GE]的时候，我们推出了广为宣传的口号：在每一个市场成为头号或排名第二，为达目的不惜整顿，出售或关闭。
这不是我们的战略，虽然我常常听到有人那么说。
这是一个激励人心的口头禅来形容我们的业务应该向什么方向发展。
我们的策略不仅仅是方向性的。
通用电气公司打算从生产商品化产品转向生产高附加值的科技产品或出售服务替代出售产品。
“大战略与策略4. 我认为，这些CEO的蓝筹公司都对战略概念采取了稍微涵盖一切的观点。
让我们把他们所谈论的“大战略”称为一个战略，但这是在总体意义上来说的，就像美国汽车业说，他们会从高耗油车辆转型到更小，更省油的车型。
And perhaps this is where Allan leighton and Louis Gerstner were comingfrom in their earlier quotes. “It was simple,” Leighton might say. “Asda had always been about value.” Or Gerstner might say: “It was simple. We had to get IBM back to thinking about customer service.” Maybe, for a chief executive, that’s strategy---and rightly so. But I can’t agree with Welch when he says that “Be number in every market, and fix, sell or close to get there” was not a strategy.It was, in my humble opinion, a very clear business strategy: one of the many strategies that Welch must have employed in pursuit of his grand strategy, to move out of commodities. And I also don’t beli eve (as Leighton and Gerstner appear to believe) that “low level” strategy is simple or easily chosen, even once the grand strategy is clear, or that it is difficult to devise a radically new strategy.A battle of wits5. Strategy is about detailed planning; a battle of wits between the leader/manager and whatever forces he or she is pitted against. Even relatively simple business initiatives require “strategic” thinking---the need to act in a way that moves you closer to the final goal, rather than in a way that merely solves the immediate problem.6. Napoleon Bonaparte was, in my opinion, one of the greatest strategic thinkers of history, a brilliant planner and a masterful logistician. In a career studded with brilliant victories, Napoleon’s most over whelming strategic victory was perhaps his campaign of 1805, when he made a preemptive strike against the armies of Austria and Russian who were combining forces to invade France.He dispatched 210,000 troops from northern France to the Danube, collecting 25,000 Bavarian allies along the way: an unprecedented number of men travelling more than two hundred miles in the remarkably short time of thirteen days. Napoleon surprised the Austrians with both the speed and direction of his attack, cutting them off in the fortress city of Ulm on the upper reaches of the Danube. The Austrian General Mack was forced to surrender his 30,000 men without any significant battle having been fought.Napoleon’s impe tuous commander of cavalry then failed to execute Napoleon’s plan to encircle the Russian army in a similar way, leaving Napoleon in a very exposed position, even though his cavalry commander did achieve the trophy victory of occupying Vienna, the Austrian capital. French troops were tired after eight weeks of campaigning; their lines of communication were very stretched.Napoleon’s impetuous commander of cavalry then failed to execute Napoleon’s plan to encircle the Russian army in a similar way, leaving Napoleon in a very exposed position, even though his cavalry commander did achieve the trophy victory of occupying Vienna, the Austrian capital. French troops were tired after eight weeks of campaigning; their lines of communication were very stretched. 也许这就是阿伦.雷特顿和路易.斯格斯特纳先前所说的。