● 黄昭虎教授 Wee Chow Hou, PhD, PPA 

　One of the most important aspects in the conduct of war is
the relationship between strategy, structure and behaviour. 
In fact, the following phrases by Sun Tzu are very 
illuminating:

"To manage a large force in combat is similar to that of a 
small force. It is a matter of organisation."

"To control a large force in combat is similar to that of a 
small force. It is a matter of formations and signals."

　Implicit in these two quotations is that size is not a 
factor in management and control of an army. What is more 
important is the way the army is organised and structured. 
This is the same with business organisations. I have often 
heard businessmen making remarks such as they wish their 
companies are small. This is because if the company is 
small, as a boss, he knows everything. There are no labour 
problems, and hence no labour pains! On the other hand, I 
have also heard businessmen wishing that they hope their 
companies are large. This is because if the company is big,
he (as the boss) can afford to hire graduates and 
professionals to work for him. He can then have more time 
to play golf and pursue other interests and hobbies. 
Interestingly, the issue is not of size. Rather, the 
effectiveness and efficiency of any company or institution 
depend largely on how it is organised and structured. This 
is supported by the following saying by Sun Tzu :

"Order and disorder depends on organisation."

　Thus, the way a military general organises his army would 
affect the behaviour of the troops in battle. In the same 
way, the way a company is organised and structured will also
determine the behaviour of the employees. For example, if a
company wants to become international, it must be structured
in such a way so as to reward those employees with 
international experience. In other words, those with 
overseas experience must enjoy a premium when it comes to 
promotion and rewards. Otherwise, no one would want to work
overseas.

　Some years ago, a senior bank executive incharge of public
relations (PR) asked me for advice on how to justify the 
activities of his PR department. I told him bluntly that 
the survival of his PR department depends largely on the 
magnanimity of his chief executive officer (CEO). I further
told him that for his PR department to do well, he must 
report directly to the CEO as opposed to the senior officer 
incharge of marketing. This is because in the PR area, a 
lot of spending has no immediate nor direct returns. In 
fact, it is very difficult to determine the relationship 
between any increase in sales to that of PR activities. PR 
activities are definitely different from those in marketing 
whereby its expenses on advertising and promotion are all 
sales-related. Thus, if the PR person were to report to the
marketing manager, the outcome is not difficult to predict 
-- PR activities will endup with step-child treatment. Yet 
in today's highly competitive environment, the need for 
effective PR programmes cannot be overlooked.

　What, then, determines structure? In war, it is always 
strategy. In other words, the strategy must be the genesis 
of any organisational design and structure. Undeniably, no 
organisation starts off with no structure. The point is, 
when it comes to any new initiatives or programmes, the 
strategy must be designed first. The appropriate support 
structure and systems can then be put in place. It is just 
like in military campaigns. No army in the world is 
organised without a structure. If anything, the army is 
probably one of the most structured organisations around. 
However, when it comes to planning for war, the starting 
point for the whole exercise begins with defining and 
outlining the strategy (or battle plan and goals). For 
example, in the 1991 war against Iraq, the United States-led
forces decided on the strategy first before embarking on how
to organise for combat. Otherwise, the United States would 
have to ship its entire army to the Gulf, including then 
President George Bush! After all, as the President, he was 
the commander-in-chief. Of course, in reality, we all know 
that this was not the case. In fact, in the 1991 Gulf War, 
the United States experimented with many ways of organising 
and structuring their troops for war, depending on the 
strategies concerned. Even General Norman Schwarzkopf was 
himself a product of overall strategy.

　There are many reasons why structure and organisation must
follow the crystallisation of the strategy in war. Firstly,
there is a need for flexibility. This is because battle 
conditions are quite fluid, and the general on the ground 
must be given the maximum flexibility to organise and 
restructure his troops and formations depending on the 
battle situations. At the same time, battle conditions are 
filled with uncertainty. Despite the best military 
intelligence and analyses, the war environment is dynamic 
and there is an urgent need and requirement to tailor the 
strategy according to the situation of the battlefield. 
Thus, the general must be given the maximum leeway to 
reorganise and restructure his troops.

　Secondly, as battle conditions change, the general must 
change his strategy accordingly. In other words, he has to 
constantly reorganise according to his strategy. Although 
he begins with a battle plan, that plan can never be cast in
stone. He must constantly reorganise his troops for battles
as he changes his plan (strategy) to meet the dynamic 
conditions of war. These changes are also necessitated as a
result of casualties when the war progresses. In sum, he 
has to be very proactive and seize on any available 
opportunity to win. At the same time, he will be able to 
tackle the risks and dangers more effectively. This 
philosophy of shaping according to the changes on the 
battleground was true of ancient wars, and is still 
applicable today. In sum, the relationships between 
strategy, structure and behaviour can be illustrated by the 
following diagram:

 |→ STRATEGY(Goals, objectives and plans)

 |           ↓

 |→ STRUCTURE(Organisation)

 |            ↓

 |→ BEHAVIOUR(Results, Outcome)

　Interestingly, when it comes to business organisations, we
tend to forget about these relationships. We often let the 
structure dictate the strategy regardless of the changes in 
the business environment. Unfortunately, an organisation 
structure can get fossilised over time and develop into a 
highly bureaucratic institution. As a result, instead of 
moving forward, it retards progress and cease to be a 
learning organisation. It avoids risks and seek to take 
decisions only in areas in which it is comfortable with. 
Such an approach is perhaps understandable if the business 
environment is very stable with few changes. However, this 
is far from the truth today.

　With the economic and financial turmoils that are 
affecting the region, I would seriously urge companies to 
re-examine their strategies to ensure that they are able to 
withstand the challenges ahead. If new strategies are 
required, companies must be bold enough to adopt them and 
change their organisations accordingly. In other words, an 
existing organisation or structure should not be viewed as 
constraints to change if the strategy dictates that the 
change is necessary. In this aspect, it is very heartening 
to note that the government has started a comprehensive 
review of our banking system in order to ensure its 
competitiveness in the global economy. In the process, some
"sacred cows" may have to be done with, and there may be 
significant changes to the banking industry. For example, 
mergers as a strategy may be the way to go to ensure that 
our banks can grow bigger and stronger so as to counter 
stiff international competition. This would mean 
substantial changes to the ways banks and other financial 
institutions are organised and structured in Singapore.

　The banking industry is only one such example of how 
changes in strategies may dictate the need to reorganise and
restructure. Many other industries in Singapore face the 
same challenge. While changes are often resisted (more so 
when the stakeholders concerned are comfortable with 
existing structures), they are nonetheless necessary for any
individual, organisation and society to improve and 
progress. The current economic crisis perhaps provides the 
impetus for this to take place. After all, any shrewd 
strategist would always focus on the opportunities that 
provide the breakthroughs in a crisis rather than be 
threatened by the danger.

(The writer is Professor of Business Policy; Dean, Faculty 
of Business Administration; Director, Graduate School of 
Business, National University of Singapore & a resource 
panellist of SPH's Chinese Newspapers.) 

战略、结构和行为 

　　两军交战，一个最重要的环节是怎样处理好战略、结构和行为三
者的关系。事实上，孙子以下的说法很发人深省。

“凡治众如治寡，分数是也。”

（要做到管理人数多的军队像管理人数少的军队一样，这是组织编制
的问题。）

“斗众如斗寡，形名是也。”

（要做到指挥人数众多的军队作战像指挥人数少的军队一样，这是通
讯、指挥的问题。）



大小不是组织指挥的重要因素



　　这两句话清楚说明了管理和指挥军队时，大小不是一个因素，较
重要的是军队的组织和结构。

　　商业机构也是如此。我经常听到商人说，希望自己经营的是小公
司。因为公司小，老板就可以无事不知。没有工人惹的麻烦，事业起
步时也就少点头痛！

　　另一方面，我也常听到商人说他们希望自己的公司大。因为大才
请得起大学生和专业人士来替自己卖力，好让自己有更多空闲时间打
高尔夫球，做自己感兴趣的事或搞其他嗜好。关键不在大小，这点很
有意思。一家公司或机构的实力及效率如何，很大程度上，还是要看
它的组织和结构。孙子以下这句话，又是一个证明：

“治乱，数也。”

（“治乱”是组织指挥的问题。）

　　所以，一个主帅怎样组织他的军队，会影响这支军队在战场上的
行为。同样的，公司的组织和结构形态，也决定了它属下雇员的行为
。举例来说，一家公司如果要走向国际，就必须确立一种“奖赏国际
经验”的结构。换句话说，在擢升和制定薪俸时，有海外经验的雇员
一定要多打几分。不然，没有人愿意被派出国。

　　好几年前，一名主管公关部门的银行高级执行员问我，要怎样证
明给人家看，公关部的工作不是可有可无的？我直截了当回答：他的
部门的存活率，很大程度上取决于他的执行总裁有多大量。

　　我进一步告诉他，公关部门要有所作为，就得直接向总裁而不是
负责行销的主管汇报。

　　理由是公关领域里有很多花费，是没有直接或马上看得到回报的
。事实上，你很难确定销售量上涨了，和公关活动究竟有什么关系。
行销部投入到广告和促销中的每一分钱，都与销售额挂钩，但公关部
肯定不是这样。

　　因此，公关如果是对行销经理负责，后果大概不难猜想——就是
沦为继子，受到冷淡对待。但在今天高度竞争的环境里，有效的公关
计划，却是忽略不得的。



战略为组织结构之根



　　那结构又是由什么来决定的呢？在战争中，一定是战略。战略是
任何组织设计或结构的根源。

　　无可否认，没有一个机构，是从无结构中萌芽的。我们说的是当
有新的概念、计划要推展时，战略一定得首先构思出来。有了战略，
才谈怎样建立起适当的支援结构和体系。

　　这就好比一场战役。世上没有不靠结构而建立起来的军队。甚至
可以说，军队就是一种最具有结构特质的组织。然而，在做战争规划
时，第一步往往是战略（或作战方案及目的）的制订和提出。

　　1991年对伊拉克开战便是一个例子。由美国带头的部队，在组织
战斗之前，便先拟定好战略。要不是这样，美国很可能得把整个部队
，包括当时的总统布斯全运到波斯湾！毕竟作为总统，他也身兼总司
令之职。当然现实中，我们知道没有这回事。事实上，当年美国在波
斯湾战争中，就按照战略试验了多种军队的组织和结构模式。就连施
瓦茨克夫(Schwarzkopf)将军本身，也是全盘战略下的产物。



随机应变是颠扑不破法则



　　战争中，有很充分的理由先敲定战略才谈结构和组织。

　　首先，打仗讲求灵活变通。战场上的风云变色只在一瞬间，你必
须让身处其中的统帅有最大的发挥空间，好配合战局组织军队和布阵
。

　　战场上也充满很多不确定性。尽管有最好的军事情报和分析在手
，战争环境还是呈动态的，这就迫切须要不断配合新形势作出战略调
整。因此一定要放手给统帅，好重新进行兵力的组织及结构。

　　第二，战局一旦变化，统帅的战略也跟着要变。换句话说，统帅
经常得配合战略而改变组织。作战方案虽然一开始就有，却不是“死
的剧本”。要应付战争新状况，他手下的部队，就得时不时顺应作战
方案（战略）而重新布署。此外，战事持续造成的伤亡，也是应变的
因素。

　　总之，统帅的一切行动必须很有预见性，任何胜出机会他都必须
把握。而统帅越善应变，就越能有效掌控风险和危难。“随机应变”
这个古代战场上颠扑不破的法则今天仍旧适用。战略、结构、行为的
关系，可从以下图解中看出：

　|→战略（目的、目标、规划）

  |　　　　　↓

　|→结构（组织）
  |　　　　　↓

　|→行为（成绩、结果）

　　然而在商业机构里，这样的关系往往被遗忘，即我们总是让结构
去主宰战略，而无视于环境的变化。

　　不幸的是一个机构的结构，会随着时间推移而僵化，最后滋生出
官僚主义。结果前进的步伐遇到阻挠，机构失去了学习能力，一遇到
风险就回避，只在熟悉的领域里才敢作出决定。采取这种取向在一个
平稳、少变化的商业环境里是可以理解的。问题是今天的现实情况，
完全不是这么一回事。

　　此刻的区域，经济和金融风暴正在猛刮，我认真呼吁公司如果想
在这一波冲击中屹立不倒，就一定要对本身的战略做一番重新审视。
需要新战略，就必须放胆采纳，把公司结构换掉。换句话说，公司的
组织和结构须配合战略而调整，不能把它们看成是改变的制约。

　　从这个角度来看，政府要在全球经济中维持竞争力而对银行体系
进行的全盘评估，是很令人鼓舞的。过程中，一些以前“碰不得的支
柱”可能要移走，行业内天翻地覆的变革可能出现。例如，为了应付
更艰巨的国际挑战，一条可能得走的路是通过战略性合并，让一些银
行变得更强大。这就意味着新加坡一些银行和金融机构的组织和结构
方式，很可能得承受重大改变。

　　银行业只是一个例子，说明战略的改变，怎样引发出重新组织和
结构的需要。新加坡有很多行业也存在同样的挑战。改变总是阻力重
重的（特别是既得利益者，已适应了原有结构），不过对任何个人、
机构或社会来说，要改进和向前发展就得经过这一关。

　　眼前的经济危机，很可能是发动这一场变革的契机。毕竟在一场
危机中，精明的战略家看到的总是怎样利用“机”会取得突围，而不
是被“危”险吓退。

（作者是新加坡国立大学企业管理学院院长及华文报咨询团成员）