Comparing: Flawed Forces

The Art of War 10:2.1-6

This post continues our project explaining each stanza of Sun Tzu’s work. The English translation and Chinese transliterations are from my award-winning book, The Art of War and The Ancient Chinese Revealed.

Due to our member’s generous support, we will send all our articles to all subscribers. To enjoy my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This article discusses the first stanza of the second section of Chapter 10 of The Art of War. This chapter’s general topic is the six types of terrain on which we compete, but this section focuses on the weaknesses of the “armies” involved. Later in this section, the book describes how these weaknesses come from the flaws of their generals. In this article, however, we discuss how each of these six weaknesses can be connected to one of the six types of field positions, discussed in the first section of the chapter.

The method of practical strategy is comparison. We compare potential competitive terrains, but we also compare the forces that compete on those terrains. Each of the six terrains magnify one of the six organizational flaws listed here. Sun Tzu doesn’t explain this connection, but he lists the terrains in the same order as their associated flaws. We are interested in where these forces will be united and therefore strong, and where they will be weak. We especially analyze our own forces to know where we will fail.

This post is public so feel free to share it.

The flaws discussed in this stanza are all organizational problems. Organizations have three components: a leader, management, and workers. All of these components must contribute to the organization’s strength. The most important part is the leader, because he builds the organization. All organizational flaws flow from the leader.

The flaws of an organization are magnified on the wrong type of terrain. This stanza lists the six problematic terrain. The following stanzas discuss each flaw in more depth.

The Flaws

<Make> <military> <have> <move> <is>
Some armies can be outmaneuvered.

The challenges of unobstructed terrain (see this article) are that all competitors can move in any direction that they desire. There are no obstacles to prevent us from moving directly toward our goals, but others can move to outflank us, putting them in a better position to get to where we want to go. On unobstructed ground, good leadership requires being able to see the big picture, to understand who might outflank us. We must see not only where we want to go, but where others can go as well.

<Have> <relaxed> <subject>
Some armies are too lax.

The competitive positions that require the most discipline are on entangling terrain (see this article). All movements forward out of these positions must be successful because we can not return to them. Discipline is required to stick to these sticky positions, and discipline is needed to make successful moves out of them. Only discipline keeps competitive forces in place when they need to stay and allows them to successfully move when an opportunity presents itself.

<Have> <sink> <subject>
Some armies fall down.

There is one type of terrain where we don’t want to fall down: the slippery slope of supporting positions (see this article). These peak positions are slippery because all the surrounding terrain is downhill, that is, weaker. These positions cannot be advanced by moving out of them, so they must be improved by building them up. In hierarchical organizations, those managers looking for more power are tempted to move outside of the supporting terrain to develop their own, more independent territories.

<Have> <collapse> <subject>
Some armies fall apart.

Constricted positions (see this article) are also built up, but for a different reason. These areas have limited space within them. The unity that produces strength is more important in these positions because they cannot grow large by expanding beyond their scope. We must fill all these constricted spaces and defend them.

<Have> <disorder> <subject>
Some armies are disorganized.

In barricaded positions (see this article), organizations tend to degrade over time. They are protected by barriers to entry, so the entire organization gets sloppy. Its mission and its methods become confused. The unity that creates strength is lost, not to division, but to confusion. Because their direction is confused, people work at cross purposes. Rewards from these position will decrease and eventually the territory will fail.

<Have> <flee> <subject>
Some armies must retreat.

When organizations try to develop positions on a spread-out terrain, they are spread too thin. This leaves many opportunities for their opponents. Eventually, larger competitors whose sizes better match the size of the opportunity, move in. The smaller organizations are squeezed out. Because of the mismatch between territory and organization, the unity and focus the produces strength is impossible.