Summary
There are important differences between what the Strategos is and what can be understood as a Strategist. The first is the " Strategy professional ", while the second is who eventually or circumstantially applies strategic logic in their actions.
The Strategy Professional bases their development on the knowledge of the Strategic (Organization, Strategos, Strategy, Conflict), on the application of Strategic Principles and on certain personal abilities and aptitudes.
One of the most important requirements is the application of Strategic Principles. These constitute ancestral wisdom in the treatment of the Conflict. These principles are the set of experiences of thousands and thousands of Strategos in their interaction with thousands of Conflicts throughout thousands of years of history.
Whoever applies these Strategic Principles is the one who, in truth, makes Strategy, and who will ultimately achieve the advantage over the competitor.
“With the right strategy, the battle is only half won; the strategy succeeds exclusively through professional execution ”.
The most appropriate way to understand in all its magnitude what the Strategos represents in the logic of the Strategic (Organization, Strategos, Strategy, Conflict), and among the universe of general concepts of government, is reached by referring to it as “the professional of the Strategy ”. The Strategos must be an individual who has deep knowledge of everything related to the Strategic, vast experience in the execution of the concepts and practical experience of the successes and failures that are associated with the phenomenon.
When it comes to referring to the person behind the Strategy, many thinkers refer to him as the "strategist." This name is somewhat short for Strategos because in essence many people can, temporarily, be included in the definition of the strategist or one who has developed an action with strategic logic, however the Strategos "professes" this knowledge and puts it into practice in everything moment, he knows them in depth, studies them, reviews them, changes them and evolves with them permanently.
In terms of Strategy, Strategos is a highly competitive athlete, he is not only one who practices sport with passion. Live for it and live for it. High-level athletes are perhaps some of the people most sacrificed and pressured by the state of preparation in which they must always find themselves, by the results they must obtain, by the relentless way in which they rate their efforts and by the way in which everything must be reached with an advantage over rivals. A highly competitive athlete "adjusts" each variable of his personal life to the task and in this he differs greatly from those who exercise the sport with skill or dedication.
This is the same difference between the Strategos and the "strategist." We have all been a bit of the latter at some point, the former, however, can only be achieved with the idea of achieving a truly professional level.
It is also curious to identify that the term "strategist" is not exactly one that is widely applied in military organizations, in short, it is done more frequently when the subject is among business organizations. In military life, it is assumed that the Strategy is closely linked to the existence of the “general” of the “commander”, and it is precisely these words that frequently explain the nature of the Strategy. In business organizations, the allusion to the strategist is often the product of an effort to explain the existence of someone who is resorting to strategic logic to achieve a goal.
If the intimate relationship that exists between Strategos and Strategy is properly understood, there is also evidence of a vital individual-function link that explains the interaction between both, to the point that none of the elements of the equation can be explained independently of the other, of the The same way that a highly competitive sport is explained by the existence of the athletes who practice it, just as they themselves achieve their meaning by the very existence of the sport.
Any basically knowledgeable person can make the attempt to describe the characteristics of a sport, but significant difficulties in doing so emerge when trying to describe a highly competitive sport without considering the athletes who explain it and give it the precise meaning. It is the athletes who turn this sport into a highly competitive contest.
A difficulty very similar to the previous one arises from the desire to describe what Strategy is. The concept is very difficult to "grasp" and the definitions include a wide range of propositions. Achieving specificity requires a lot of effort and involves a significant risk, since the innumerable edges of the concept are also open to innumerable interpretations. This should be at least worrisome in the case of a concept as sensitive as Strategy.
The difficulty is probably greater when it comes to defining what the Strategos is or rather what it does. Here, really, the interpretations can be as many as the number of people who want to do them.
The truth is that the etymological interpretation itself provides loopholes that are worrying, at least when one wants to identify peripheral roots; evaluate the following:
The term Strategy comes from the Greek word "Strategos" which means "a general". But in turn this same term comes from roots that mean "army" and "leader". Furthermore, the Greek verb "stratego" means "to plan the destruction of the enemies because of the efficient use of resources."
The integral interpretation tends to lead to the following logic:
However, the term "leadership" that explains the function carried out to achieve the objective (destruction of the enemy), opens up additional possibilities of interpretation. One of them may be oriented to the verb "stratego" and its aspect of "planning", but there it will face the vital questioning that requires a greater understanding of the functions of the "general" than the only one referred to the function of planning. From now on, all the disquisitions run the risk of traveling through very slippery terrain.
Now, when the statement is presented that Strategos is a Strategy professional (because nothing prevents the approach of that expectation), the very way of understanding what Strategy is in the integral context of the Strategic, acquires a different dimension, since Strategy becomes a function, and is explained by everything the Strategos does.
Then, Strategy ends up being the function of Strategos, to the point that everything that Strategos does is Strategy, in the same way that everything that a highly competitive athlete does simultaneously explains the sport itself.
It is possible to understand that "the general" does many things in the army, but it is much easier to understand that the general leads the Organization to "destroy the enemies because of the efficient use of resources." In this purpose lies the reason for being and the usefulness of its existence, for this purpose it is formed and based on it it is obliged to constantly perfect its knowledge and skills.
The Strategy is a particular way of approaching the Conflict, its scope incorporates all the factors that the process demands, from start to finish: the concepts, the plan, the action. This "particular" way of dealing with Conflict draws on a very special wisdom. And in this case the choice of the word wisdom responds to a very specific interest, because its treatment removes similar considerations that for the case are insufficient. For Strategy wisdom summarizes the art, technique, science, practice and method of doing things strategically.
The term wisdom is based on two concepts: " prudent behavior and deep knowledge."
If the interpretation of Wisdom refers exclusively to "deep knowledge" then the Strategy could be based on the study of concepts, theories, techniques and methods, but in this case nothing would guarantee that its execution would simultaneously be covered by a "prudent behavior" Because ultimately, who could define what is prudent behavior?
Strange as it may seem, Prudence is closely linked to effectiveness. The same efficiency that is demanded for “the use of resources”. But it is much more complicated to "learn" prudence than any art, technique, science or method. Therefore, it is easier to know and learn prudent arts, techniques, sciences or methods, than prudence itself. At least this is exactly what is intended through the pursuit of wisdom for the application of the Strategy.
The wisdom from which the Strategy is nourished is a set of deep and prudent knowledge that has been put into practice throughout thousands of years of man's history in his coexistence with the Conflict. Thousands and thousands of episodes of application of strategic postulates to solve situations of confrontation of interests; each one with different verdicts, between resounding successes and complete failures; each one with the diverse participation of Strategos, in some cases victorious and in others not.
The product of that millenary experience is constituted by a set of Strategic Principles on which effective and successful strategic action is based.
A Principle constitutes a "basis of argumentation taken from experience"; From it, more experiences can be developed, with a greater probability of efficiency and success. The Strategic Principles constitute the wisdom on which strategic action rests.
If the individual bases his action in a sustained way on the Strategic Principles, then he is practicing Strategy, and if he does it tirelessly and in a professional way, then this is who should be called Strategos.
If, on the other hand, one is choosing to describe Strategy as the function of Strategos, the Strategy itself ends up being an orientation to do things based on the application of Strategic Principles.
The only true heritage of the Strategy is constituted by the Strategic Principles. And these are given in inheritance from Strategos to Strategos throughout the history that man knows. In the same process they are enriched, consolidated, nurtured and transformed, so that their value remains over time. And when the knowledge of the Strategic Principles is added to the understanding of the Organization and the Conflict and in turn is applied with the necessary support of certain aptitudes and abilities, then the professional of the Strategy emerges.
Many thinkers and authors involved in the universe of Strategy like to affirm that Strategy is a mental process, and for this reason they often invest the greatest efforts in analyzing the conceptual environment that surrounds it. But regardless of the fact that this may represent a truth of importance, the professional of the Strategy can in no case remain framed only between the margins of intellectual reality, because the essence of the very foundations of the Strategy, those represented by its Principles Strategic, it demands that the experience takes place, and it only manifests itself through action. In this sense, it is reasonable to descend from the theoretical framework to describe even the mechanics that the Strategy may have.This process successfully completes the formation of the Strategos because it does not leave it isolated in the analysis of the mental process.
Karl Von Clausewitz used to say: “Theory cannot provide a formula with which to solve problems. It allows the mind to examine objects and their relationships and then move to the higher regions of action to operate there. The Strategic Principles are a very wise theory, but the personal aptitudes and abilities of the Strategos contribute significantly to "those higher regions of action" and thus necessarily complete his professional profile.
Leon Trotsky stated: “There is no science of war and there never will be. There are many sciences to which war is related. But war is not itself a science; war is art, practice and skill ”.
In summary, the description of the characteristics of Strategos as a Strategy Professional deserves a treatment of Knowledge, Skills and Aptitudes, the first two concentrated between the knowledge of the Strategic and the Strategic Principles, and the last as a definition of BEING.
The Strategic Principles are not owned by anyone. They exist from the experience that man has had throughout thousands of years of history and hundreds of thousands of conflicts in which he has been involved and with which he has had to interact. The knowledge of these principles belongs to the student, who with dedication and patience will face the fabulous challenge of discovering and understanding them. No work, by itself, is capable of registering them in their entirety.
Whoever claims to act strategically guides their action through these principles. And in that process he also builds, from individuality, new ones. And this is the greatest contribution that the Strategy professional can provide.
In a very modest approach, some of these Strategic Principles can be cited in this way:
a) Estimation of competitors' conditions
- Estimation of the spirit of mission Estimation of external forces Estimation of market conditions Estimation of the quality of leadership of competitors Estimation of the guiding principles of competitors
b) Comparison of attributes (strong and weak competitive points)
Which Management has the greatest moral influence?
Which Strategos is best trained?
Which competitor enjoys more favorable conditions regarding external conditions and characteristics in the Market?
In which Organization are orders best executed?
Which competitor has the best trained Human Resources?
Which competitor is more strict and impartial in the application of rewards and penalties?
Etc.
c) Provision of Adequate Resources.- Resources are subordinate to the Strategy. The Strategy is not subordinate to resources.
d) Converting Time into an ally.
- Haste wins. The sooner the better. The sooner the less likely to be surprised. The sooner, the less prepared the competitor is. The sooner, the more likely to surprise.
e) Everyone should benefit from victories.
f) Perfect knowledge of the trade (knowledge of the Business).
g) Apply Stratagems
h) Apply Strengths against Weaknesses, always.
i) Beware of the General - Sovereign relationship (Senior Management - Strategos Relationship).
j) Obedience to the dynamics of combat.
- The one who knows when to fight and when not will win. The one who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces will win. The one whose men are united for the same purpose will win. The one who is well prepared and stalks an enemy who is not well prepared will win. one that has capable generals and in whose actions the sovereign does not intervene.
k) Reach Invincibility.- Invincibility lies in defense, the possibility of victory in attack.
l) Constitute a solid organizational structure.
m) Use the normal to distract and the extraordinary to win.
n) Coordination of impulse and time (Force-Opportunity).
o) Assume the Initiative.
p) Plan the Surprise.
q) Achieve a Relative Superiority.
r) Be Flexible.
s) Deceiving the competitor.
t) Get the Mental Advantage.
u) The best defense is a good offense.
v) Discipline.
w) Make victory the only option.
x) Invest in information resources.
y) Etc.
