作為市場行銷人， 我們每天都在跟戰略打交道。 但多數時候， “戰略策略”這些詞只是虛妄的口頭概念 —— 極少數人真正理解它們的意義，
那麼戰略究竟是什麼？離我們遙不可及麼？
在戰略管理領域的有本非常知名的書籍叫做《好戰略， 壞戰略》（good strategy, bad strategy）。 它的開篇引言部分總結了全書精華， 我覺得很棒， 有助於大家一窺戰略之要義。 遂翻譯， 並加上些自己的思考附在結尾， 希望對你有益。
（本書作者：Richard Rumelt）
OVERWHELMING OBSTACLES
困難重重
譯 / 李怡
1805年， 英格蘭面臨著一個挑戰。
當時Napoléon征服了歐洲的大片地區， 並計畫入侵英格蘭。 但要想橫渡英吉利海峽， 他首先要奪得大海的控制權。 於是， 由法國和西班牙租車的強大聯合艦隊（共33艘戰船）， 與規模相對較小的英國艦隊（共27艘）在西班牙西南海岸狹路相逢。
In 1805, England had a problem. Napoléon had conquered big chunks of Europe and planned the invasion of England. But to cross the Channel, he needed to wrest control of the sea away from the English. Off the southwest coast of Spain, the French and Spanish combined fleet of thirty-three ships met the smaller British fleet of twenty-seven ships.
那時海戰的成熟戰術是這樣的：兩支敵對艦隊， 面對面列成一排， 然後彼此開火（看過加勒比海盜吧）。 但英軍指揮官， 上將Nelson產生了一個戰略洞見：他把英國艦隊分成兩列， 命令他們以垂直角度沖向法國-西班牙艦隊， 並發動攻擊。 （這種戰略下）領頭的英國艦船實際上是冒著巨大風險的（容易被包夾擊沉）。
The well-developed tactics of the day were for the two opposing fleets to each stay in line, firing broadsides at each other. But British admiral Lord Nelson had a strategic insight. He broke the British fleet into two columns and drove them at the Franco-Spanish fleet, hitting their line perpendicularly. The lead British ships took a great risk, but Nelson judged that the less-trained Franco-Spanish gunners would not be able to compensate for the heavy swell that day.
特拉法加戰役
最終， 當這場載入史冊的特拉法加戰役結束時， 法西艦隊損失了22艘船（三分之二）， 而英國艦隊損失竟然是0艘。 可惜的是Nelson上將在這場戰役中死去，
也正是這場戰役， 為英國海軍在接下來一個半世紀內的世界無敵奠定了基礎。
At the end of the Battle of Trafalgar, the French and Spanish lost twenty-two ships, two-thirds of their fleet. The British lost none. Nelson was mortally wounded, becoming, in death, Britain’s greatest naval hero. Britain’s naval dominance was ensured and remained unsurpassed for a century and a half.
讓我們來回顧一下， Nelson當時面臨的挑戰是：敵軍人數遠勝於他。 而他的戰略是：讓英軍旗艦冒著巨大風險去破壞法西艦隊陣型的連貫性。 他判斷， 一旦敵方艦隊陣型被打亂， 具備豐富經驗的英國艦長將在接下來的混戰中取勝。
Nelson’s challenge was that he was outnumbered. His strategy was to risk his lead ships in order to break the coherence of his enemy’s fleet. With coherence lost, he judged, the more experienced English captains would come out on top in the ensuing melee.
Nelson上將
好戰略， 幾乎總是像上面這樣， 看起來簡單、明顯， 用不著幾百頁PPT來解釋。 好戰略並不是從什麼矩陣、三角、圖表等“戰略管理”工具中蹦出來的。 好戰略的制定者， 會界定一或兩個關鍵問題——挖掘出那些能夠讓行動的功效成倍增加的核心節點， 然後在上面集中投入資源。
Good strategy almost always looks this simple and obvious and does not take a thick deck of PowerPoint slides to explain. It does not pop out of some “strategic management” tool, matrix, chart, triangle, or fill-in-the-blanks scheme. Instead, a talented leader identifies the one or two critical issues in the situation—the pivot points that can multiply the effectiveness of effort—and then focuses and concentrates action and resources on them.
儘管有許多人把戰略等同於“雄心”、“領導力”、“願景”、或“經濟邏輯”這樣的概念， 但這些根本不是“戰略”。 戰略工作的核心始終不變：在特定情境中發現關鍵因素， 並設計一系列統合和聚焦的行動來處理這些因素。
Despite the roar of voices wanting to equate strategy with ambition, leadership, “vision,” planning, or the economic logic of competition, strategy is none of these. The core of strategy work is always the same: discovering the critical factors in a situation and designing a way of coordinating and focusing actions to deal with those factors.
作為領導人， 最重要的責任是確定前進道路上最大的挑戰， 並想出連貫一致的手段來克服這些挑戰。不論是企業經營還是上升到國家安全，戰略都至關重要。然而，大多數人早就習慣了那種“領導人滔滔不絕喊口號、把企業目標當做企業戰略”的場景。
A leader’s most important responsibility is identifying the biggest challenges to forward progress and devising a coherent approach to overcoming them. In contexts ranging from corporate direction to national security, strategy matters. Yet we have become so accustomed to strategy as exhortation that we hardly blink an eye when a leader spouts slogans and announces high-sounding goals, calling the mixture a “strategy.” Here are four examples of this syndrome.
事實上，一個好戰略遠不只是督促我們朝目標前進。好戰略可以坦誠地承認我們所面臨的挑戰，並找到克服它們的方法。挑戰越巨大，一個好的戰略就越能集中和協調資源，幫助企業在競爭中取勝或解決問題。
A good strategy does more than urge us forward toward a goal or vision. A good strategy honestly acknowledges the challenges being faced and provides an approach to overcoming them. And the greater the challenge, the more a good strategy focuses and coordinates efforts to achieve a powerful competitive punch or problem-solving effect.
可惜，好戰略必然不是普遍現象，而是例外。
領導者們都認為自己有戰略，其實他們沒有，他們大多數人都在做 “壞戰略”。所謂“壞戰略”通常會忽略或繞過那些惱人的細節。壞戰略會忽視選擇和專注的力量，反而嘗試包容各種相互衝突的利益需求。就像那種只會對隊友建議說“讓我們贏下比賽”的橄欖球四分衛，壞戰略用像“目標”“遠景”“價值觀”這樣空泛的概念來掩蓋它的無能。但這些概念實際上並不能替代戰略思考的所需付出的努力。
Unfortunately, good strategy is the exception, not the rule. And the problem is growing. More and more organizational leaders say they have a strategy, but they do not. Instead, they espouse what I call bad strategy. Bad strategy tends to skip over pesky details such as problems. It ignores the power of choice and focus, trying instead to accommodate a multitude of conflicting demands and interests. Like a quarterback whose only advice to teammates is “Let’s win,” bad strategy covers up its failure to guide by embracing the language of broad goals, ambition, vision, and values. Each of these elements is, of course, an important part of human life. But, by themselves, they are not substitutes for the hard work of strategy.
其實絕大多數人一直沒有分清楚哪些是真正的戰略，而哪些又是被人貼上“戰略”標籤的一系列烏七八糟的概念。在1966年，當我第一次開始學習商業戰略時，市面上一篇相關的文章也沒有，只有三本關於戰略的書。而今天，我的書架堆滿了關於戰略的書。諮詢公司專精於戰略，戰略也發展出了博士學位…而戰略領域每天都在產生無數文章。
The gap between good strategy and the jumble of things people label “strategy” has grown over the years. In 1966, when I first began to study business strategy, there were only three books on the subject and no articles. Today, my personal library shelves are fat with books about strategy. Consulting firms specialize in strategy, PhDs are granted in strategy, and there are countless articles on the subject.
但更多的內容，並沒有讓我們對“戰略”的理解更清晰。更確切地說，戰略這個概念變得更像是萬能膠式的包裝術語，仿佛任何事物都可以加上戰略讓它們顯得更高大上。對於商業、教育和政府的從業人士，“戰略”這個詞簡直就是他們的口頭禪。在各種高談闊論中，他們將行銷稱作“行銷戰略”，將資料處理稱作“IT戰略”，將收購稱為“增長戰略”…如果企業要降低價格，一些觀察家們會說這是你的“低價戰略”。（攤手）
But this plentitude has not brought clarity. Rather, the concept has been stretched to a gauzy thinness as pundits attach it to everything from utopian visions to rules for matching your tie with your shirt. To make matters worse, for many people in business, education, and government, the word “strategy” has become a verbal tic. Business speech transformed marketing into “marketing strategy,” data processing into “IT strategy,” and making acquisitions into a “growth strategy.” Cut some prices and an observer will say that you have a “low-price strategy.”
一個可以代表任何東西的概念已經失去其真正價值。要讓一個概念擁有內涵，我們必須劃定它的界限，指明它到底代表什麼，不代表什麼。
A word that can mean anything has lost its bite. To give content to a concept one has to draw lines, marking off what it denotes and what it does not.
為了搞清楚戰略的概念，我們先談一個誤區，“戰略”和“戰略性的”這兩個詞現在經常被模糊的用來指代那些高級領導們的決策。例如，在商業領域，大多數並購投資行為、重要客戶的商業談判、組織架構設計通常被認為是“戰略性的”。
然而，當你談到“戰略”時，你不應該只是依據決策者的地位等級來評定。準確的說，“戰略”應該是對重大挑戰的一系列回應。戰略不是某個單獨的決策或目標設定，戰略是實施概念厘清、調研分析、解讀政策、邏輯論證和執行行動等一系列連貫措施以最終解決問題的整體過程。
To begin the journey toward clarity, it is helpful to recognize that the words “strategy” and “strategic” are often sloppily used to mark decisions made by the highest-level officials. For example, in business, most mergers and acquisitions, investments in expensive new facilities, negotiations with important suppliers and customers, and overall organizational design are normally considered to be “strategic.” However, when you speak of “strategy,” you should not be simply marking the pay grade of the decision maker. Rather, the term “strategy” should mean a cohesive response to an important challenge. Unlike a stand-alone decision or a goal, a strategy is a coherent set of analyses, concepts, policies, arguments, and actions that respond to a high-stakes challenge.
許多人以為戰略就是規劃大方向，和具體行動無關。但如果這樣定義戰略，“戰略”和“執行”之間就產生了巨大的鴻溝，那麼戰略工作就成了空中樓閣。事實上，這確實是有關“戰略”最常見的疑問。
Many people assume that a strategy is a big-picture overall direction, divorced from any specific action. But defining strategy as broad concepts, thereby leaving out action, creates a wide chasm between “strategy” and “implementation.” If you accept this chasm, most strategy work becomes wheel spinning. Indeed, this is the most common complaint about “strategy.”
一位高管對我說，“我們有很詳盡的戰略，但執行中卻存在巨大問題。我們幾乎總是完不成我們自己設定的目標”。順著我的邏輯來，你就明白為什麼會出現這種抱怨。一個好戰略包含了一系列連貫措施，這些措施並非“執行”細節，但卻是戰略的核心組件。那些無法制定合理且可行性強的連貫行動的戰略是有缺陷的。
Echoing many others, one top executive told me, “We have a sophisticated strategy process, but there is a huge problem of execution. We almost always fall short of the goals we set for ourselves.” If you have followed my line of argument, you can see the reason for this complaint. A good strategy includes a set of coherent actions. They are not “implementation” details; they are the punch in the strategy. A strategy that fails to define a variety of plausible and feasible immediate actions is missing a critical component.
好戰略都有一個基本的邏輯結構，我稱之為戰略核心。戰略核心包括三個要素：診斷過程、指導方針和連貫行動。
通過診斷我們找到前進的關鍵障礙；指導方針則細化了如何解決這些障礙和挑戰的方法。指導方針就像一個路標，它標出前進方向，但不會指出解決過程的細節；最後，連貫行動是貫徹指導方針且可行性強的協調手段、資源承諾和具體行動。
A good strategy has an essential logical structure that I call the kernel. The kernel of a strategy contains three elements: a diagnosis, a guiding policy, and coherent action. The guiding policy specifies the approach to dealing with the obstacles called out in the diagnosis. It is like a signpost, marking the direction forward but not defining the details of the trip. Coherent actions are feasi ble coordinated policies, resource commitments, and actions designed to carry out the guiding policy.
一旦你有了完善而堅實的好戰略，你就同時擁有了識別出壞戰略的能力。正如你不需要成為導演才能發現壞電影，你也不需要具備經濟、金融或其他專業知識來辨別好戰略和壞戰略。
舉個栗子，看看美國政府應對2008年金融危機的“戰略”，你會發現它確缺失了基本要素 —— 政府從來沒有對產生金融危機的根源進行診斷，也因此，政府的行動沒有重點、浮於表面，他們僅僅是把更多國家資源從大眾轉移到銀行。即使你不是宏觀經濟學博士也懂得這是個壞戰略。
譯者注：次貸危機後布希政府主要使用QE量化寬鬆政策，大概是通過美聯儲收購金融機構的有毒資產穩定情況，這同時也算對民眾財富的一次“掠奪”。
Once you gain a facility with the structure and fundamentals of a good strategy, you will develop the parallel ability to detect the presence of bad strategy. Just as you do not need to be a director to detect a bad movie, you do not need economics, finance, or any other abstruse special knowledge to distinguish between good and bad strategy. For example, looking at the U.S. government’s “strategy” for dealing with the 2008 financial crisis, you will see that essential elements are missing. In particular, there was no official diagnosis of the underlying malady. So, there can be no focus of resources and actions on a cure. There has only been a shift of resources from the public to the banks. You do not need a PhD in macroeconomics to make this judgment—it follows from understanding the nature of good strategy itself.
壞戰略的問題不僅是沒有好戰略，它有自己的一套邏輯，就像建立在錯誤地基之上的虛幻高樓。壞戰略會積極避免分析挑戰與問題，因為領導者認為分析這些問題所帶來的負面想法會阻礙前進。制定壞戰略的領導者容易地把戰略工作當作目標設定而不是解決問題。或者，他們會懶於抉擇，因為他們不希望冒犯任何利益相關方——這樣就產生了那種試圖面面俱到而不能專注聚焦的壞戰略。
Bad strategy is more than just the absence of good strategy. Bad strategy has a life and logic of its own, a false edifice built on mistaken foundations. Bad strategy may actively avoid analyzing obstacles because a leader believes that negative thoughts get in the way. Leaders may create bad strategy by mistakenly treating strategy work as an exercise in goal setting rather than problem solving. Or they may avoid hard choices because they do not wish to offend anyone—generating a bad strategy that tries to cover all the bases rather than focus resources and actions.
壞戰略的蔓延影響著我們每個人：政府在定目標和喊口號時雷聲大，真正解決問題時卻雨點小；董事會成員們在那些不過是一廂情願的戰略計畫上簽字；教育系統善於定目標和設標準，卻無力理解和應對自身不足…..唯一的藥方是對這世界上的“引領者們”要求更高。
除了魅力和遠見，我們還需要好戰略。
The creeping spread of bad strategy affects us all. Heavy with goals and slogans, the national government has become less and less able to solve problems. Corporate boards sign off on strategic plans that are little more than wishful thinking. Our education system is rich with targets and standards, but poor in comprehending and countering the sources of underperformance. The only remedy is for us to demand more from those who lead. More than charisma and vision, we must demand good strategy.
怡見：
1 本書作者對“戰略”理解的關鍵之處
①好戰略並非一個單一決策，而是一個整體過程。這個過程作者總結為三部分：調研分析、指導方針、連貫執行。
②好戰略的核心是界定那些能解決問題的關鍵要素。拿特拉法加戰役舉例，關鍵要素就是陣型和經驗，在這兩個點著重投入就可能獲得巨額回報。
③好戰略不是目標設定，也不脫離執行。領導人設定鼓舞人心的目標並不是解決辦法，這個很好理解；不能指導具體怎麼執行的戰略也不是好戰略。
這本書之所以叫good strategy，bad strategy就是因為用好與壞可以更清晰區分戰略。我入行時這樣理解策略：從A點到B點的路徑就是我的策略。這樣理解難免維度單一，環境、目標、出發點都影響我們的那條路是好策略還是壞策略。
如果再仔細閱讀作者關於戰略和執行關係的闡述，你會發現他說的還是很模糊的。執行究竟是被戰略指導，還是包含在好戰略之中？“連貫行動”由誰來執行是不是也決定了戰略本身的成敗？這也正是廣告策劃中planning和creative出現界限模糊的原型情景。哈，你很聰明的意識到了這點不是麼？
2 本文對我啟發最大的一點
初看本文我最先注意到的一點是：作者建議我們要找到關鍵要素/節點然後投入。那麼問題來了，所謂關鍵要素到底是什麼？怎麼找到？我一直思索，最後發現回到了文章的標題：overwhelming obstacles。
試問我們何時需要戰略？如果企業、國家一帆風順，或者只有些小毛病，我們沒必要興師動眾。只有我們遇到了那些真正讓主體受到威脅的、優劣明顯的情況下，也就是遇到挑戰，我們才會運用戰略。換句話說，戰略正是為了應對巨大挑戰/困難。
挑戰催生戰略，而戰略也正是要正面回應挑戰。
請思考：歷史上所有的以少勝多、以弱勝強究竟為什麼會發生？歷史上曹操如何打敗袁紹，蘋果如何擊敗IBM？
我以為除了運氣的成分外，它們無一例外都是在總體劣勢的情況下，發掘了局部（或者說關鍵節點上）上的優勢。而這個局部優勢vs劣勢，就像杠杆一樣撬動和顛覆了整個戰局。局部優勢並非自然發生，而是前期分析（得出敵我優劣之對比）和一系列人為運作（暗度陳倉式的掩蓋和轉移）的結果。
*所謂勢，應該是客觀存在、可被主觀利用的能量
我以一場戰爭為例：
官渡之戰實際上是曹操與袁紹全面戰爭之縮影。
宏觀層面袁紹實力較強，結合曹操虎狼環伺的情況，其實可選擇拖垮曹操。而曹操決策果斷，認為袁紹優柔寡斷、反應不及，選擇先攘內驅劉備、再合兵（而不是分兵）戰紹。
這些決策與操作的意義很大，解除腹背受敵隱患和合兵都解決了曹操的致命劣勢。如果致命劣勢不填補，那麼戰只有敗，不如不戰。
微觀戰役層面，曹操避開主力直接廝殺士兵不足的劣勢，利用情報優勢奇襲烏巢糧道，將士以死貫徹執行，遂大勝，從此開始由守轉攻。實際上袁紹也多次嘗試截操之糧草，但沒有成功。這裡算是官渡之戰真正的轉捩點，關鍵要素是：糧草供給。此勝為曹操在局部形成的真正優勢，直接致使紹軍主力降曹。
這場戰役，曹操集團正是基於對紹軍劣勢、己方劣勢的診斷評估（diagnosis），做出的一系列連貫行動（coherent decisions and actions），先解除己方致命劣勢，到將糧草上敵方的優勢變成劣勢，從而一舉奠定勝局。
只有認清挑戰，才有機會進行優劣轉換。這是我以為的戰略之要義。
3 澄清概念和用詞
本文討論的核心Strategy在英語中是相對統一的，在中文語境我們常用兩個詞來翻譯，即“戰略”和“策略”。本人的理解是戰略策略並不分高下，只由於戰略出自戰爭，乃更宏觀之術語環境，且現代常與企業、國家綁定，所以顯得更加宏觀（算是一種啟發式偏見）；策略概念實際上內涵外延與戰略一致，但通常用於更小的語境諸如行銷策略、廣告策略等。但切勿將策略與戰術混為一談。
4 翻譯
本人英語水準一般，翻譯這篇破費了點時間，外加了一些補充和注釋方便大家理解。不足之處請包涵、指出。
結語
文末，我想說關於戰略，我們要提防的事情是：隨時隨地發生的人的認知偏見，諸如甲方乙方對目標和機會的定義，諸如個人利益與組織利益的衝突等。
在戰略思考中，絕對的劣勢有時可以轉化成優勢，而認知的偏見和隨機因素卻永遠無法消除，這也印證了引文標題，我們面對的是overwhelming obstacles。
這是戰略思考者的宿命。
——END——
並想出連貫一致的手段來克服這些挑戰。不論是企業經營還是上升到國家安全，戰略都至關重要。然而，大多數人早就習慣了那種“領導人滔滔不絕喊口號、把企業目標當做企業戰略”的場景。A leader’s most important responsibility is identifying the biggest challenges to forward progress and devising a coherent approach to overcoming them. In contexts ranging from corporate direction to national security, strategy matters. Yet we have become so accustomed to strategy as exhortation that we hardly blink an eye when a leader spouts slogans and announces high-sounding goals, calling the mixture a “strategy.” Here are four examples of this syndrome.
事實上，一個好戰略遠不只是督促我們朝目標前進。好戰略可以坦誠地承認我們所面臨的挑戰，並找到克服它們的方法。挑戰越巨大，一個好的戰略就越能集中和協調資源，幫助企業在競爭中取勝或解決問題。
A good strategy does more than urge us forward toward a goal or vision. A good strategy honestly acknowledges the challenges being faced and provides an approach to overcoming them. And the greater the challenge, the more a good strategy focuses and coordinates efforts to achieve a powerful competitive punch or problem-solving effect.
可惜，好戰略必然不是普遍現象，而是例外。
領導者們都認為自己有戰略，其實他們沒有，他們大多數人都在做 “壞戰略”。所謂“壞戰略”通常會忽略或繞過那些惱人的細節。壞戰略會忽視選擇和專注的力量，反而嘗試包容各種相互衝突的利益需求。就像那種只會對隊友建議說“讓我們贏下比賽”的橄欖球四分衛，壞戰略用像“目標”“遠景”“價值觀”這樣空泛的概念來掩蓋它的無能。但這些概念實際上並不能替代戰略思考的所需付出的努力。
Unfortunately, good strategy is the exception, not the rule. And the problem is growing. More and more organizational leaders say they have a strategy, but they do not. Instead, they espouse what I call bad strategy. Bad strategy tends to skip over pesky details such as problems. It ignores the power of choice and focus, trying instead to accommodate a multitude of conflicting demands and interests. Like a quarterback whose only advice to teammates is “Let’s win,” bad strategy covers up its failure to guide by embracing the language of broad goals, ambition, vision, and values. Each of these elements is, of course, an important part of human life. But, by themselves, they are not substitutes for the hard work of strategy.
其實絕大多數人一直沒有分清楚哪些是真正的戰略，而哪些又是被人貼上“戰略”標籤的一系列烏七八糟的概念。在1966年，當我第一次開始學習商業戰略時，市面上一篇相關的文章也沒有，只有三本關於戰略的書。而今天，我的書架堆滿了關於戰略的書。諮詢公司專精於戰略，戰略也發展出了博士學位…而戰略領域每天都在產生無數文章。
The gap between good strategy and the jumble of things people label “strategy” has grown over the years. In 1966, when I first began to study business strategy, there were only three books on the subject and no articles. Today, my personal library shelves are fat with books about strategy. Consulting firms specialize in strategy, PhDs are granted in strategy, and there are countless articles on the subject.
但更多的內容，並沒有讓我們對“戰略”的理解更清晰。更確切地說，戰略這個概念變得更像是萬能膠式的包裝術語，仿佛任何事物都可以加上戰略讓它們顯得更高大上。對於商業、教育和政府的從業人士，“戰略”這個詞簡直就是他們的口頭禪。在各種高談闊論中，他們將行銷稱作“行銷戰略”，將資料處理稱作“IT戰略”，將收購稱為“增長戰略”…如果企業要降低價格，一些觀察家們會說這是你的“低價戰略”。（攤手）
But this plentitude has not brought clarity. Rather, the concept has been stretched to a gauzy thinness as pundits attach it to everything from utopian visions to rules for matching your tie with your shirt. To make matters worse, for many people in business, education, and government, the word “strategy” has become a verbal tic. Business speech transformed marketing into “marketing strategy,” data processing into “IT strategy,” and making acquisitions into a “growth strategy.” Cut some prices and an observer will say that you have a “low-price strategy.”
一個可以代表任何東西的概念已經失去其真正價值。要讓一個概念擁有內涵，我們必須劃定它的界限，指明它到底代表什麼，不代表什麼。
A word that can mean anything has lost its bite. To give content to a concept one has to draw lines, marking off what it denotes and what it does not.
為了搞清楚戰略的概念，我們先談一個誤區，“戰略”和“戰略性的”這兩個詞現在經常被模糊的用來指代那些高級領導們的決策。例如，在商業領域，大多數並購投資行為、重要客戶的商業談判、組織架構設計通常被認為是“戰略性的”。
然而，當你談到“戰略”時，你不應該只是依據決策者的地位等級來評定。準確的說，“戰略”應該是對重大挑戰的一系列回應。戰略不是某個單獨的決策或目標設定，戰略是實施概念厘清、調研分析、解讀政策、邏輯論證和執行行動等一系列連貫措施以最終解決問題的整體過程。
To begin the journey toward clarity, it is helpful to recognize that the words “strategy” and “strategic” are often sloppily used to mark decisions made by the highest-level officials. For example, in business, most mergers and acquisitions, investments in expensive new facilities, negotiations with important suppliers and customers, and overall organizational design are normally considered to be “strategic.” However, when you speak of “strategy,” you should not be simply marking the pay grade of the decision maker. Rather, the term “strategy” should mean a cohesive response to an important challenge. Unlike a stand-alone decision or a goal, a strategy is a coherent set of analyses, concepts, policies, arguments, and actions that respond to a high-stakes challenge.
許多人以為戰略就是規劃大方向，和具體行動無關。但如果這樣定義戰略，“戰略”和“執行”之間就產生了巨大的鴻溝，那麼戰略工作就成了空中樓閣。事實上，這確實是有關“戰略”最常見的疑問。
Many people assume that a strategy is a big-picture overall direction, divorced from any specific action. But defining strategy as broad concepts, thereby leaving out action, creates a wide chasm between “strategy” and “implementation.” If you accept this chasm, most strategy work becomes wheel spinning. Indeed, this is the most common complaint about “strategy.”
一位高管對我說，“我們有很詳盡的戰略，但執行中卻存在巨大問題。我們幾乎總是完不成我們自己設定的目標”。順著我的邏輯來，你就明白為什麼會出現這種抱怨。一個好戰略包含了一系列連貫措施，這些措施並非“執行”細節，但卻是戰略的核心組件。那些無法制定合理且可行性強的連貫行動的戰略是有缺陷的。
Echoing many others, one top executive told me, “We have a sophisticated strategy process, but there is a huge problem of execution. We almost always fall short of the goals we set for ourselves.” If you have followed my line of argument, you can see the reason for this complaint. A good strategy includes a set of coherent actions. They are not “implementation” details; they are the punch in the strategy. A strategy that fails to define a variety of plausible and feasible immediate actions is missing a critical component.
好戰略都有一個基本的邏輯結構，我稱之為戰略核心。戰略核心包括三個要素：診斷過程、指導方針和連貫行動。
通過診斷我們找到前進的關鍵障礙；指導方針則細化了如何解決這些障礙和挑戰的方法。指導方針就像一個路標，它標出前進方向，但不會指出解決過程的細節；最後，連貫行動是貫徹指導方針且可行性強的協調手段、資源承諾和具體行動。
A good strategy has an essential logical structure that I call the kernel. The kernel of a strategy contains three elements: a diagnosis, a guiding policy, and coherent action. The guiding policy specifies the approach to dealing with the obstacles called out in the diagnosis. It is like a signpost, marking the direction forward but not defining the details of the trip. Coherent actions are feasi ble coordinated policies, resource commitments, and actions designed to carry out the guiding policy.
一旦你有了完善而堅實的好戰略，你就同時擁有了識別出壞戰略的能力。正如你不需要成為導演才能發現壞電影，你也不需要具備經濟、金融或其他專業知識來辨別好戰略和壞戰略。
舉個栗子，看看美國政府應對2008年金融危機的“戰略”，你會發現它確缺失了基本要素 —— 政府從來沒有對產生金融危機的根源進行診斷，也因此，政府的行動沒有重點、浮於表面，他們僅僅是把更多國家資源從大眾轉移到銀行。即使你不是宏觀經濟學博士也懂得這是個壞戰略。
譯者注：次貸危機後布希政府主要使用QE量化寬鬆政策，大概是通過美聯儲收購金融機構的有毒資產穩定情況，這同時也算對民眾財富的一次“掠奪”。
Once you gain a facility with the structure and fundamentals of a good strategy, you will develop the parallel ability to detect the presence of bad strategy. Just as you do not need to be a director to detect a bad movie, you do not need economics, finance, or any other abstruse special knowledge to distinguish between good and bad strategy. For example, looking at the U.S. government’s “strategy” for dealing with the 2008 financial crisis, you will see that essential elements are missing. In particular, there was no official diagnosis of the underlying malady. So, there can be no focus of resources and actions on a cure. There has only been a shift of resources from the public to the banks. You do not need a PhD in macroeconomics to make this judgment—it follows from understanding the nature of good strategy itself.
壞戰略的問題不僅是沒有好戰略，它有自己的一套邏輯，就像建立在錯誤地基之上的虛幻高樓。壞戰略會積極避免分析挑戰與問題，因為領導者認為分析這些問題所帶來的負面想法會阻礙前進。制定壞戰略的領導者容易地把戰略工作當作目標設定而不是解決問題。或者，他們會懶於抉擇，因為他們不希望冒犯任何利益相關方——這樣就產生了那種試圖面面俱到而不能專注聚焦的壞戰略。
Bad strategy is more than just the absence of good strategy. Bad strategy has a life and logic of its own, a false edifice built on mistaken foundations. Bad strategy may actively avoid analyzing obstacles because a leader believes that negative thoughts get in the way. Leaders may create bad strategy by mistakenly treating strategy work as an exercise in goal setting rather than problem solving. Or they may avoid hard choices because they do not wish to offend anyone—generating a bad strategy that tries to cover all the bases rather than focus resources and actions.
壞戰略的蔓延影響著我們每個人：政府在定目標和喊口號時雷聲大，真正解決問題時卻雨點小；董事會成員們在那些不過是一廂情願的戰略計畫上簽字；教育系統善於定目標和設標準，卻無力理解和應對自身不足…..唯一的藥方是對這世界上的“引領者們”要求更高。
除了魅力和遠見，我們還需要好戰略。
The creeping spread of bad strategy affects us all. Heavy with goals and slogans, the national government has become less and less able to solve problems. Corporate boards sign off on strategic plans that are little more than wishful thinking. Our education system is rich with targets and standards, but poor in comprehending and countering the sources of underperformance. The only remedy is for us to demand more from those who lead. More than charisma and vision, we must demand good strategy.
怡見：
1 本書作者對“戰略”理解的關鍵之處
①好戰略並非一個單一決策，而是一個整體過程。這個過程作者總結為三部分：調研分析、指導方針、連貫執行。
②好戰略的核心是界定那些能解決問題的關鍵要素。拿特拉法加戰役舉例，關鍵要素就是陣型和經驗，在這兩個點著重投入就可能獲得巨額回報。
③好戰略不是目標設定，也不脫離執行。領導人設定鼓舞人心的目標並不是解決辦法，這個很好理解；不能指導具體怎麼執行的戰略也不是好戰略。
這本書之所以叫good strategy，bad strategy就是因為用好與壞可以更清晰區分戰略。我入行時這樣理解策略：從A點到B點的路徑就是我的策略。這樣理解難免維度單一，環境、目標、出發點都影響我們的那條路是好策略還是壞策略。
如果再仔細閱讀作者關於戰略和執行關係的闡述，你會發現他說的還是很模糊的。執行究竟是被戰略指導，還是包含在好戰略之中？“連貫行動”由誰來執行是不是也決定了戰略本身的成敗？這也正是廣告策劃中planning和creative出現界限模糊的原型情景。哈，你很聰明的意識到了這點不是麼？
2 本文對我啟發最大的一點
初看本文我最先注意到的一點是：作者建議我們要找到關鍵要素/節點然後投入。那麼問題來了，所謂關鍵要素到底是什麼？怎麼找到？我一直思索，最後發現回到了文章的標題：overwhelming obstacles。
試問我們何時需要戰略？如果企業、國家一帆風順，或者只有些小毛病，我們沒必要興師動眾。只有我們遇到了那些真正讓主體受到威脅的、優劣明顯的情況下，也就是遇到挑戰，我們才會運用戰略。換句話說，戰略正是為了應對巨大挑戰/困難。
挑戰催生戰略，而戰略也正是要正面回應挑戰。
請思考：歷史上所有的以少勝多、以弱勝強究竟為什麼會發生？歷史上曹操如何打敗袁紹，蘋果如何擊敗IBM？
我以為除了運氣的成分外，它們無一例外都是在總體劣勢的情況下，發掘了局部（或者說關鍵節點上）上的優勢。而這個局部優勢vs劣勢，就像杠杆一樣撬動和顛覆了整個戰局。局部優勢並非自然發生，而是前期分析（得出敵我優劣之對比）和一系列人為運作（暗度陳倉式的掩蓋和轉移）的結果。
*所謂勢，應該是客觀存在、可被主觀利用的能量
我以一場戰爭為例：
官渡之戰實際上是曹操與袁紹全面戰爭之縮影。
宏觀層面袁紹實力較強，結合曹操虎狼環伺的情況，其實可選擇拖垮曹操。而曹操決策果斷，認為袁紹優柔寡斷、反應不及，選擇先攘內驅劉備、再合兵（而不是分兵）戰紹。
這些決策與操作的意義很大，解除腹背受敵隱患和合兵都解決了曹操的致命劣勢。如果致命劣勢不填補，那麼戰只有敗，不如不戰。
微觀戰役層面，曹操避開主力直接廝殺士兵不足的劣勢，利用情報優勢奇襲烏巢糧道，將士以死貫徹執行，遂大勝，從此開始由守轉攻。實際上袁紹也多次嘗試截操之糧草，但沒有成功。這裡算是官渡之戰真正的轉捩點，關鍵要素是：糧草供給。此勝為曹操在局部形成的真正優勢，直接致使紹軍主力降曹。
這場戰役，曹操集團正是基於對紹軍劣勢、己方劣勢的診斷評估（diagnosis），做出的一系列連貫行動（coherent decisions and actions），先解除己方致命劣勢，到將糧草上敵方的優勢變成劣勢，從而一舉奠定勝局。
只有認清挑戰，才有機會進行優劣轉換。這是我以為的戰略之要義。
3 澄清概念和用詞
本文討論的核心Strategy在英語中是相對統一的，在中文語境我們常用兩個詞來翻譯，即“戰略”和“策略”。本人的理解是戰略策略並不分高下，只由於戰略出自戰爭，乃更宏觀之術語環境，且現代常與企業、國家綁定，所以顯得更加宏觀（算是一種啟發式偏見）；策略概念實際上內涵外延與戰略一致，但通常用於更小的語境諸如行銷策略、廣告策略等。但切勿將策略與戰術混為一談。
4 翻譯
本人英語水準一般，翻譯這篇破費了點時間，外加了一些補充和注釋方便大家理解。不足之處請包涵、指出。
結語
文末，我想說關於戰略，我們要提防的事情是：隨時隨地發生的人的認知偏見，諸如甲方乙方對目標和機會的定義，諸如個人利益與組織利益的衝突等。
在戰略思考中，絕對的劣勢有時可以轉化成優勢，而認知的偏見和隨機因素卻永遠無法消除，這也印證了引文標題，我們面對的是overwhelming obstacles。
這是戰略思考者的宿命。
——END——