his 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
