This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License. Almost twenty-five centuries ago, the successful general Sun Tzu wrote one of the great Chinese classics, The Art of War. In it, he outlines the secrets underlying his victories, many of which have been successfully applied not only to warfare of other times, but to other kinds of conflict - including the conflicts which arise in business.
However, I am not at war with my family. I am not at war with my friends. I am not at war with my work colleagues, my employers, or my employees. I am not at war with my clients or my suppliers. I may not even be at war with others in the same business. If I am at war with these people, perhaps I should not be.
These were the thoughts which led me to write The Art of Peace - an application of many of the underlying principles of Sun Tzu's work, along with others from other sources, to the goal of reconciliation and mutual advantage. It is based, often loosely, at other times quite closely, on the style and in many cases the substance of The Art of War, in the 1910 translation by Lionel Giles. I have followed the original to the extent of including notes in the body of the text, as is the Chinese practice.
I am not, strictly speaking, a pacifist, in that I believe war is sometimes the least bad of a number of bad alternatives. But I remember being very impressed by a speaker I heard in Australia on the subject of pacifism (during the Gulf War). Many Australians, including some in government, are nervous of Indonesia, their militarily powerful northern neighbor. This speaker suggested that the best way to deal with the potential covetousness of Indonesia towards the good things of Australia was not to build up the defence force, but to offer the Indonesians development (so that they would be prosperous enough themselves not to need to attack Australia) and educational scholarships (so that their future leaders would have Australian friends and would not want to attack Australia). This would be pre-emptive and preventative action. By the time they wanted to attack, it would be too late for the best solution.
The stated aim of The Art of War was to bring peace and security by enabling the defeat of enemies who would threaten these. The aim of The Art of Peace is to achieve the same end by creating allies who will strengthen them.
Chapter 1. Preparation
Chapter 2. Seeking Peace
Chapter 3. Tactics of Peace
Chapter 4. Energy and Synergy
Chapter 5. Allocating Resources
Chapter 6. Variation of Approaches
Chapter 7. Resources in Use
Chapter 8. Issues
Chapter 9. The Nine Situations
Chapter 10. Mutual Benefit through Gifts
Chapter 11. The Gaining of Information
The art of peace consists of having the resources available to bring about solutions to issues which are beneficial to all parties.
The art of peace is only possible if all parties can be brought to work for such a solution. The key to this is to make all parties aware that such a solution is to their advantage, more so than a solution which does not have benefits for all.
A solution brought about by threats and compromise will not be satisfactory to either side.
If there is a winner and a loser, then there are two losers.
If I win at your expense, I forfeit your trust and your friendship, and thus, perhaps, your future co-operation. This is the indirect cost of winning.
Winning may also involve great direct cost, as resources are poured into 'victory' by both sides. This is especially so when 'victory' is the result of one side's reluctance or inability to spend any further resources on the conflict. This side has lost as much as, or more than, it believes it can afford. The other side has probably lost nearly the same amount, perhaps more, but it began with more or was prepared to reach a lower level of remaining resources in order to gain 'victory'. Most of these resources have been spent to no productive end.
Such is the case with the war in Vietnam. The Vietnamese 'won' because they were fighting for their country, and were therefore prepared to fight to the last. The USA 'lost' because the cost of the war came to be seen as excessive. In fact, the cost of the war had always been excessive, for both sides, and both sides were losers in the conflict. Many lawsuits are 'won' and 'lost' in the same way, ultimately benefiting only the lawyers, as war ultimately benefits only the arms dealers - and, in the larger picture, perhaps not them either.
Mutual benefit is victory. Loss on both sides is defeat for both sides.
The art of peace, then, is governed by constant factors, understanding of which is the first of the resources for peace.
These are: 1) The Moral Law; 2) Heaven; 3) Earth; 4) The Peacemaker; 5) Method and Discipline.
The Moral Law is the acknowledged code of behaviour which leads others to recognise the proposals of the peacemaker as fair and reasonable.
Heaven signifies changing circumstances, external factors influencing the outcome of a discussion.
Earth signifies the issues themselves, the 'ground' for the discussion, its intrinsic factors.
The Peacemaker has the virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage and determination.
Method and Discipline enable the peacemaking process to happen in an orderly and effective manner.
While paying attention to my advice, take advantage of any other helpful circumstances over and above the rules I propose. Plans and approaches should be modified according to need and opportunity.
All peace is based on trust. Therefore the art of peace consists of bringing about trust between the parties.
If others are uncertain, reassure them. If they are distrustful, give them cause to trust you by helping them unselfishly. If they are defensive, show that you will not attack them. If they attack you, show that this is not effective in gaining their goals.
If others are prone to anger, calm them. If arrogant, flatter them by asking for their help. If unselfconfident, find something to praise in their achievements. If incompetent, combine firmness and gentleness, seeking ways they can improve and contribute.
The peacemaker who is effective in bringing about peace reflects carefully before interacting with others. The peacemaker who is ineffective does not reflect carefully. By this means, effectiveness or ineffectiveness can be predicted in advance.
Carrying on a war is extremely expensive, but seeking peace can appear more expensive.
The parties may fear a trick or a trap, or they may believe that peace is not possible. They may believe that they could gain more by attacking than by seeking peace, and in the short term this may be true. They may resent the time and resources the establishment of peace requires. They may fear the loss of support from others if they are seen to be seeking peace with a traditional enemy. They may fear that if they do not put all their resources into preventing the other party from winning, they themselves will lose.
The two giant cola companies spend an immense amount of money, not to gain new consumers, but to retain the market share they have. They are concentrating so hard on not losing that their resources for winning are severely reduced.
Prolonged negotiations are not usually profitable. It may be better to break them off, or never to begin them, if the situation is not serious and the potential gains are small.
In particular, negotiating with a party which persists in regarding you as an enemy may ultimately be unproductive. A wise peacemaker will be prepared to admit that a task is futile, at least at this time. The very fact of breaking off negotiations may bring about a change in the situation - though this should not be used too readily, or as an empty threat.
To provide a solution to a conflict is not the supreme excellence. Supreme excellence consists in bringing about mutual benefits without first having to dispose of conflict.
Thus the highest form of peacemaking is to enhance the other party's situation; the next best is to prevent conflict developing; the next is to prevent the escalation of problems; and the least is to deal with problems after they have become serious.
In the case of problems which have become serious, the peacemaker will pay a high price for peace. There will be much time lost in dealing with the problems, and large benefits may have to be offered, at high cost, to enable peace to come about.
It is the rule in peace, if our resources are much greater, that we offer patronage; if they are somewhat greater, that we offer business; if they are equal, that we offer partnership; if they are inferior, that we offer service. From these arrangements, mutual benefit can be gained.
There are three ways in which a peacemaker can endanger the process of peace.
1) By asking for, or offering, benefits, being ignorant of the fact that these are not practical.
2) By attempting to use the adversarial methods of argument in the enterprise of peace.
3) By not using resources wisely, through ignorance of the principle of adaptation to circumstances. This diminishes others' confidence in the peacemaker.
Thus, we may know that there are five essentials to the victory of mutual benefit.
1) The peacemaker will bring about mutual benefit who knows what to offer and what not to offer.
2) The peacemaker will bring about mutual benefit who knows how to offer benefits from both a position of greater resources and a position of lesser resources.
3) The peacemaker will bring about mutual benefit whose group is united in desiring this objective.
4) The peacemaker will bring about mutual benefit who is well prepared.
5) The peacemaker will bring about mutual benefit who has resources and is free to use them without interference from a superior or a constituency.
The victory of mutual benefit lies in these five points.
Hence, all things being equal: If you know the other party and know yourself, you need not fear the result of the negotiations. If you know yourself but not the other party, for every mutual benefit gained you will also have a mutual loss. If you know neither the other party nor yourself, you will always have a mutual loss.
The successful peacemaker first ensures that mutual loss will not occur, and then waits for an opportunity for mutual benefit.
To secure ourselves against loss lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of mutual benefit requires co-operation from the other party.
Though the other party may not intend co-operation; see below.
Thus, the good peacemaker is able to secure against loss, but cannot be certain of bringing about mutual benefit.
Hence, one may know how to make peace, without being able to do it.
Security against loss implies decisiveness; ability to bring about mutual benefit means being proactive.
Concentration on limiting losses indicates insufficient strength; seeking mutual benefit, ample strength.
To see mutual benefit when anyone could see it is not the peak of excellence.
Neither is it the peak of excellence if you work hard to overcome problems and bring about mutual benefit and everyone says, "Well done!"
True excellence is to act so that mutual benefit is a natural consequence of your conduct, so that it can come about without struggle and without conflict having arisen.
The peacemaker is one who not only brings mutual benefit, but excels in doing so with ease. Hence, these victories bring neither a reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage.
This peacemaker brings mutual benefit by getting things right.
The successful peacemaker plans no unneeded meetings, devises no unproductive systems. One who seeks to bring mutual benefit by sheer weight of resources - though mutual benefit will be obtained in resource-intensive projects - is neverthess liable on occasion to fail, whereas the person who can look wisely into the future and prevent difficulties before they arise will not make an error and will invariably succeed.
Getting things right is what establishes the certainty of mutual benefit, for it means making common cause with someone who is already a partner.
Thus, in peace the victorious strategist only engages with a partner when the mutual benefits are already assured, whereas the person destined to defeat first engages and afterwards looks for victory.
The consummate peacemaker cultivates the moral law (strives to be a person of integrity), and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in this person's power to control success.
In respect of method, we have, firstly, Measurement; secondly, Estimation of Quantity; thirdly, Calculation; fourthly, Balancing of Chances; fifthly, Victory.
Measurement owes its existence to Earth [the factors intrinsic to the situation], Estimation of Quantity to Measurement; Calculation to Estimation of Quantity; Balancing of Chances to Calculation; and Victory to Balancing of Chances.
An enterprise in which there is mutual benefit, compared to one in which there is conflict, is as a heavy weight placed in the scale against a single grain.
The onrush of an effective partnership is like the bursting of pent-up waters into a deep chasm. So much for the tactics of peace.
Peace on a large scale is brought about by the same principles as peace on a small scale. It is simply a matter of applying the principles widely.
To ensure that your whole organisation may deal with conflict and bring about mutual benefit - this is effected by means direct and indirect.
That the impact of your organisation may be like a large machine made up of small parts, each working effectively - this is brought about by the knowledge of weaknesses and strengths.
In all peacemaking, direct methods may be used to begin negotiations, but indirect methods may be needed to produce mutual benefit.
(Particularly with a hostile other party.)
Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are as fruitful and continuously effective as the rhythms of nature.
There are only twelve musical notes, yet combinations of these make possible more music than can ever be heard.
There are only three primary colours, yet combinations of these produce more hues than can be distinguished.
In peacemaking, there are only two methods, the direct and the indirect, yet these two in combination give an endless set of possibilities.
Energy may be compared to the fuelling of an engine; decision, to the spark which sets it going. Therefore the good peacemaker will be well provided with resources and ideas, and prompt in decisionmaking.
Seeming vulnerability postulates perfect security; seeming loss postulates gain; seeming weakness postulates strength.
In seeking mutual benefit with a hostile partner, a request for help may be a means of providing help. An apparent concession may bring greater long-term gain. The very practice of peacemaking will be seen as weak by some, but in fact is the greatest form of strength.
By offering benefits, the peacemaker can distract a hostile person from attack which would reduce the benefits for both.
The clever peacemaker looks to the effect of combined resources, and does not require too much from individuals.
(The principle of synergy: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.)
In utilising combined energy, the peacemaker's group becomes like a lever and fulcrum or a wheel, enabling useful work to be done which could not be done by the separate parts. So much on the subject of energy.
Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you the last victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.
Methods for peace are like water, which naturally runs away from high places and hurries downwards.
So in peace, the method is to avoid what is difficult and insoluble and work on what can be agreed upon.
Water takes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the peacemaker works out mutual benefits in relation to the situation.
So, just as water has no constant shape, in peacemaking there are no constant conditions or never-fail solutions.
The person who can modify approaches depending on the other party and the situation being dealt with, and thereby bring about mutual benefit, may be called an excellent peacemaker.
Having first made peace within oneself, one may make peace within one's group. Having first made peace within one's group, one can attempt peace with other groups.
Part of this process involves allocation of resources, than which there is nothing more difficult. The difficulty of allocation of resources consists in turning the harmful into the beneficial, the difficulty into the opportunity.
Allocating resources is difficult; allocating inadequate resources, very difficult.
If you use immense quantities of resources to solve a problem, chances are that you will now have the problem of inadequate resources for the rest of the task.
We cannot allocate resources wisely until we understand the situation. We cannot take advantage of features of the situation unless we are aware of them.
We cannot have peace with others until we have peace among ourselves.
We cannot have peace with others until we understand their viewpoint. This is done by asking and listening, asking and listening, without giving advice, until we can tell the other person what their position is and astonish them with our accuracy.
We are not fit to attempt to make peace until we have made every effort to understand the issues.
Ponder and deliberate before you act; then act decisively.
Communication is a key to peace, because it is a key to united action. Mutual benefit does not result from action which is not united. If our communication is good, the effective will not move off unsupported in inappropriate directions, and the ineffective will not fail without our knowing it and being able to respond.
This is the art of dealing with large numbers of people.
A whole group may be robbed of its spirit, a leader may be robbed of presence of mind. This is the time for mutual support, for making peace with the situation.
Now a person is keenest at a long task near the beginning, near the middle will begin to flag, and near the end will only be wanting it to be over.
A clever peacemaker, therefore, corrects most in the early stages, and encourages most in the last stages. This is the art of studying moods.
Disciplined and calm, to deal with unexpected and unwelcome situations - this is the art of retaining self-possession.
To be in a position to help when others fail, to be rested when important decisions are needed, to have others in place to help when you fail - this is the art of husbanding one's strength.
To refrain from engaging a difficult problem head-on, to refrain from offering all you have when the need is least and have nothing left when it is greater - this is the art of studying circumstances.
It is an axiom of peace not to refuse help to someone in difficulty, nor to offer help to someone in no need of it.
Seek alliance with organisations whose staff are effective.
Do not try to deflect people with strongly held desires. Instead, devise ways to harness these desires for mutual benefit.
Always present options to others so that they truly participate. To feel one has been manipulated into a benefit is not beneficial.
Do not help an ineffective person too much.
This will reinforce everyone's perception of them as ineffective - yours, theirs, and others'. Give them enough help to allow them the opportunity to achieve for themselves.
Such is the art of peace.
When a contentious issue is raised, do not become obsessed with it. When an issue is raised which offers the opportunity to join with others, do so.
Do not spend too long on unimportant issues. On issues which offer few choices, be creative. In a situation where there is no alternative, commit your resources fully to pursuing the option you have.
There are approaches which must not be taken, issues which must not be raised, problems which can be avoided more profitably than they can be solved, positions which are not open to negotiation, instructions from superiors which must not be heeded.
To be truly effective, a peacemaker must have a degree of autonomy, to make judgement calls as issues arise. The peacemaker is the one who understands peacemaking and understands the situation, and so must be the one to make decisions based on this knowledge.
The peacemaker who thoroughly understands the advantages that accompany variation of approaches knows how to make the best use of resources.
The peacemaker who does not understand these may be familiar with the situation, but will not be able to turn this knowledge to advantage.
So the student of peace who is unfamiliar with the art of varying plans, despite being acquainted with the Five Advantages, will fail to make the best use of resources.
Hence in the wise leader's plans, consideration of advantage and disadvantage will be blended together.
If our expectation of advantage is tempered in this way, we may succeed in accomplishing our overall goal.
If, on the other hand, in the midst of difficulties we are always ready to take an opportunity, we may extricate ourselves from misfortune.
Build up the people you are dealing with by thinking of ways to benefit and strengthen them, avoid giving them trouble, and do not become a drain on their resources.
The art of peace teaches us to rely not on there being no problems, but on our preparedness to deal with problems; not on others being well-disposed towards us, but on knowing how to enable them to become well-disposed towards us.
There are five dangerous faults which may affect a peacemaker: 1) Recklessness, which leads to failure; 2) cowardice, which leads to lost opportunities; 3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; 4) a delicacy of honour, which is sensitive to shame, and cares too much for others' perception rather than for the actuality of achievement; 5) excessive concern about spending resources, which leads to stress and waste.
(Many resources, particularly time and human resources, must often be employed to solve a problem which would not have arisen if more had been spent on basic resources initially.)
These are the five besetting sins of the peacemaker, ruinous to the creation of peace. When a project fails to return benefits to all concerned, the cause will surely be found among these five dangerous faults. Let them be a subject of meditation.
We come now to the question of using resources, and discovering the mood of the other party.
Concentrate first on tasks which can be solved easily, and use these as a basis for solving more difficult tasks.
Locate near your resources, if possible, in a situation which will not create problems of its own.
Ensure that the physical environment is helpful, comfortable and appropriate.
After resolving a difficult issue, move to something positive. The middle of a difficult discussion is the most vulnerable time, when other grievances can easily arise and bring harm to the peace process.
If you are anxious for peace, you should not approach a person who has just been struggling with a difficult problem.
All people prefer natural light to artificial light, and fresh, clean surroundings to dark, gloomy ones.
If you are solicitous of others, and show that good conditions for them are a priority, they will be happy, and this will bring mutual benefit.
When external conditions are temporarily extremely bad, wait for them to improve before proceeding.
Situations in which there are a great many obvious difficulties, which will have to be dealt with at a great cost in resources without any positive benefit resulting from overcoming them, should be left with all possible speed and not approached.
Not only should we not approach such situations ourselves, we should warn others not to approach them.
If your situation is such that there are a great many unknown factors, be diligent in having these investigated, so that potential difficulties can be known and dealt with.
When a person appears vulnerable and is also unconcerned, that person is in a position of great strength.
Arrogance and bluster are signs of a weak position. Offering an attractive alternative which saves face will bring about mutual benefit.
When a person continually boasts of great ability, that person is unselfconfident and is seeking reassurance. Assuring them of your regard will win you an ally.
When a person constantly talks of quality, excellence and service, that person is unlikely to deliver them. Check their work carefully.
In particular, be wary of corporate mission statements which contain these words. The purpose of a mission statement is to highlight what the organisation is not doing.
When a person is open about problems, difficulties and errors, that person is trustworthy, sincere and dependable.
If only one person in the organisation can help you, and that person is never available, there is a problem with delegation, and the job may not be done well.
If the first person you talk to is friendly and can help you, you have found an exceptional person or an exceptional organisation, or both. Take the person's name and mention your satisfaction to that person's superiors.
If the person you deal with is unfriendly and rude, be courteous and positive and ask to speak to someone more senior. This will produce one of three results: 1) The person will become more co-operative; 2) you will be handed over to someone who can help you, to whom you need not mention that the first person was incompetent, as this will be self-evident; 3) further rudeness will be offered, in which case you should attempt to deal with another organisation, if possible, and inform the person's superiors that they have lost your business through the rudeness of their subordinate.
This does not seem a course of peace, but in fact is likely to act as a stimulus to improvement on the part of both the organisation and the individual, if they are capable of improvement. You will have received better service, and the next person approaching this organisation will receive better service also. This is mutual benefit.
If nobody in the organisation seems to know the answer, or know who knows the answer, to a question, you are asking the wrong organisation.
Not because they do not have knowledge, but because they cannot give you access to it.
Frantic activity is a sign that the organisation is under-resourced, or frightened, or desperate.
Lack of activity indicates that the organisation is over-resourced, or inefficient, or complacent.
Some working hard while others appear idle indicates an organisation with internal jealousies, a lack of co-operation and little consideration given to use of resources.
If all the staff are working long hours, there are too few staff or they are inefficient, or the management have taken on projects beyond the organisation's capabilities.
If only some staff are working long hours, there will be resentment within the organisation.
If the project is efficiently completed under budget or ahead of schedule, give at least part of the balance to those responsible as extra pay or holidays. They have worked hard and well to bring this about.
If staff are exhausted, they will not pursue new opportunities for advantage.
If staff believe they are poorly treated, they will not give extra effort for the organisation's benefit. They believe they will gain no mutual benefit. They are not at peace with the organisation.
An agreement without a contract is in danger of going awry.
When staff speak in low tones in small groups, which disperse when management approach, there is dissatisfaction in the organisation.
The paying of many bonuses indicates an organisation in trouble. The paying of bonuses to some but not others (who work as hard or harder, but in different roles) will lead to resentment and poor service.
Frequent disciplinary action indicates an organisation in severe trouble.
To offer threats and then back down, or promises and then back out, shows a great lack of intelligence.
A speech which begins with compliments is likely to end with a rebuke or a request.
If another party is angry but will not initiate a discussion, the situation requires great tact and care.
If our resources are barely adequate to the task, this indicates that we should concentrate them, not take on other tasks, monitor the situation carefully, and seek to augment our resources.
A person who exercises no forethought but makes light of problems will certainly be defeated by them. A person who takes others for granted will not participate in the greatest mutual benefit available.
Discipline must be of an appropriate level and at an appropriate time. It will not be resented if trust has first been established. A combination of confidence in another person and insistence on high standards will receive a good response and bring mutual benefit.
The art of delegation is to communicate the task clearly, and leave the details to the person who has been delegated the task. Unclear or constantly changing requirements and excessive supervision are the surest means of sapping the confidence of a subordinate.
Accountability, including specific and regular progress reports, is of course necessary, or it may be found late in the project that the task will not be adequately completed on time. Accountability, however, should be applied to the performance of the task - not to the means by which it is performed. If the means chosen are clearly inappropriate or ineffective, help and training in more effective methods may legitimately be offered.
We may distinguish six kinds of issues, to wit: 1) accessible issues; 2) entangling issues; 3) temporising issues; 4) issues of comparative performance; 5) difficult issues; 6) issues not well understood.
Issues which can be freely discussed, without passion, by both parties are called accessible.
With regard to issues of this nature, give equal weight to the points of the other party, and offer resources freely. Then you will be seen to be offering mutual benefit.
Issues which can be resolved but which are hard to renegotiate are called entangling.
On an issue of this sort, if the other party is generous and reasonable, you may easily establish mutual benefit. But if the other party is unreasonable, and forces a poor agreement, then, renegotiation being impossible, disaster will ensue.
When the position is such that both parties fear to lose from making the first offer, it is called a temporising issue.
In a position of this sort, it is important to have a clear idea of what is fair, acceptable and satisfactory. Thus, we can make an offer to the other party, knowing that even if it is less advantageous than they might have offered, it is not less advantageous than we are prepared to accept, and our relationship can proceed.
With regard to issues of comparative performance, if you can perform a task better than the other party, ensure adequate resources are committed to this to make it truly advantageous.
Should the other party be able to offer better performance, do not spend resources on doing what the other party can do better, but only on what they cannot do as well.
With regard to difficult issues, if an issue is difficult for you, gain a thorough understanding of it and then ask the other party's help in resolving it. If the difficult issue belongs to the other party, do not attempt to solve it for them, but offer help in solving it and point out mutual benefits in doing so.
If an issue is not well understood, and the resources of the two parties are equal, it is not easy to come to a solution or even a division of responsibilities, and benefits will be difficult to realise.
These six are the principles connected with Earth [the factors intrinsic to the situation]. The peacemaker in an influential position must be careful to study them.
Now a group is exposed to six various calamaties, not arising from natural causes, but from faults for which the leader is responsible. These are: 1) Giving up; 2) lack of commitment; 3) collapse; 4) ruin; 5) disorganisation; 6) failure.
Other conditions being equal, if a team faces a task which is too large, the result will be giving up.
When the staff are too strong and their management are too weak, the result is lack of commitment.
When the management are too strong and the staff too weak, the result is collapse.
When there is disrespect and over-ambition within the organisation, and people take tasks on on their own account and for their own advancement without communicating with the manager, whom they do not respect, before the manager can assess the situation, the result is ruin.
When the manager is weak and not respected; when instructions are not clear and distinct and well-communicated; when there are no clearly defined roles assigned, and information leaks out in a haphazard and unreliable manner rather than being well communicated, the result is utter disorganisation.
When a manager, unable to assess the difficulty of a task or the worth of another party, allows an inadequate team to take on a situation, and neglects to place experienced, wise people among them, the result must be failure.
These are six ways of being ineffective:
1) Neglecting to assess the situation, 2) lack of leadership, 3) defective training, 4) unjustifiable anger, 5) laxity of standards, 6) failure to use picked staff,
which must be carefully noted by the leader who has obtained an influential position.
The natural potential of a situation is the peacemaker's best ally, but the power of understanding the other party, of using the resources of victory, and of shrewdly calculating difficulties, dangers and requirements, constitutes the test of a great peacemaker.
The person who knows these things, and in peacemaking puts them into practice, will achieve mutual benefit. Those who neither know them nor practice them will surely fail.
If peacemaking is sure to result in mutual benefit, then you must make peace, even though your superior or constituency forbids it; if there is no mutual benefit to be gained, then you must not attempt to deal, even if your superior or constituency requires it.
The responsibility of entering into negotiation must devolve on the peacemaker alone; if offer and withdrawal of offer are controlled from a distance, brilliant results will hardly be achieved. Hence the excellent superior and the sensible constituency are content to play a humble role in furthering the cause of peace.
The peacemaker who offers without coveting reward and withdraws offers without fearing to lose face, whose only thought is to promote peace and do good service, is the jewel of the human race.
Regard your staff as your beloved children, and they will stand by you in the most difficult circumstances.
If, however, you are indulgent, but unable to make your authority felt; kind-hearted, but unable to enforce your instructions; and incapable, moreover, of quelling disorder, then your staff are like spoilt children, and are useless for any practical purpose.
If we know that we have a benefit to offer, but are unaware that the other party has nothing to offer, we have gone only halfway towards victory.
If we know that the other party has a benefit to offer, but are unaware that we have nothing to offer, we have gone only halfway towards victory.
If we know that the other party has a benefit to offer, and know that we have a benefit to offer, but are unaware that the nature of the situation makes a deal impracticable, we have still gone only halfway towards victory.
Hence the experienced peacemaker, once in motion, is never bewildered or at a loss.
Hence the saying: If you know the other party and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.
In other words, mutual benefit is brought about by knowledge of the parties involved, but maximised by knowledge of the external and internal factors of the situation.
The art of peace recognises nine varieties of situation: 1) Dispersive situations; 2) facile situations; 3) unstable situations; 4) open situations; 5) situations of potential networking; 6) serious situations; 8) hemmed-in situations; 9) desperate situations.
When people are unmotivated by the benefits offered, it is a dispersive situation.
So called because they will readily give a higher priority to other things.
When some basic progress has been made, but not much, it is a facile situation.
A situation where there are great opportunites and great dangers is an unstable situation.
A situation where both parties have a great many options is an open situation.
A situation which borders on areas into which a number of parties have put a lot of work, so that someone dealing with it has access to many resources, is a situation of potential networking.
When we have made considerable progress in dealing with a situation and are in the midst of the most difficult part of it, it is a serious situation.
Situations with many conflicting interests, ones of which little is known, things people are reluctant to talk about, or where there are strong vested interests in leaving things as they are - these are difficult situations.
Situations which are difficult to come to grips with, and which present few options, so that one minor difficulty would take up a great many resources: this is a hemmed-in situation.
A situation in which we can only avoid disaster by acting immediately is a desperate situation.
In a dispersive situation, therefore, do not look for results. In a facile situation, do not rest on your laurels. In an unstable situation, do not act quickly, but spend your energies on gaining understanding and developing benefits to offer to others. Whoever is the first to be able to offer benefits in such a situation will themselves gain considerable benefit. If someone else is in position before you, consider how you can offer benefits and support to them.
In an open situation, try not to close off the other party's options. In a situation of potential networking, seek partnerships.
In a serious situation, maximise the benefits of the progress you have made. In a difficult situation, persevere.
In a hemmed-in situation, think creatively. In a desperate situation, act decisively and do not hold back.
Skilful peacemakers know how to promote unity in organisations they are dealing with, to praise subordinates to superiors, to help the capable support the less capable, to reinforce the authority of the leaders. When the other party's efforts are scattered, they help them to concentrate, and when they are united, they aim to prevent disorder. If they have a benefit to offer, they offer one, otherwise, they remain quiet.
If asked how to deal with another party with large resources on the point of using them, I would say, "Begin by discovering something which would benefit this party, and offer this benefit."
Patience is the essence of peace. Persevere through the other party's unpreparedness, communicate carefully, and help them through difficult spots.
The following are the principles to be observed by a project team: The more success you experience, the greater will be the solidarity of your team, and thus the greater the problems you will be able to solve and the benefits you will be able to offer.
Use the knowledge you have gained in the course of your success to gain you more, and more useful, resources.
Carefully study the well-being of your team, and do not overtax them. Concentrate your energy and hoard your strength.
Keep your team constantly challenged, and communicate clearly.
Put your staff in positions in which giving up is not an option, and they will prefer to fail rather than desert you. If they can face failure, there is nothing they cannot achieve. People of all levels and roles will put forth their utmost efforts.
In desperate situations, people gain added courage. If there is no alternative to pressing on, they will do so against all odds. Thus, without waiting to be alerted, they will be alert. Without waiting to be asked, they will do what you want. Without restrictions, they will be loyal. Without supervision, they will be trustworthy.
Prohibit superstitious practices, and do away with unwarranted worries about the future. Then, no problem need be feared.
If people act for the good of others, it is not that they are not selfish. If they end up in difficulties, it is not because they do not wish for a quiet life. It is for the peacemaker to order things so that their desires lead in the direction of mutual benefit.
When first facing a problem, people may complain bitterly. But when they are in the thick of it, and must solve it, they will show courage and resourcefulness.
The good team may be compared to the human body. Now, if the human body is running, the blood rushes to the legs, but if it is sitting thinking, the blood runs to the brain. So, in a good team, support will be given by the whole team to whoever needs it most.
Asked if a group can be made to imitate the human body, I say, yes. For even enemies will co-operate in desperate situations.
Hence, it is not enough to put up lists of rules and motivational signs. Only a genuine co-operation will result in an effective team.
The principle on which to manage a team is to set up one standard of competence which all must reach.
How to make the best of both strong and weak - that is a question involving the proper approach to situations.
Thus the skilful peacemaker leads a team as if leading a single person by the hand.
It is the business of a peacemaker to be friendly, and thus maintain communication; to have integrity, and thus be a role model.
A leader must be able to inform a team with accurate reports and honesty, and thus keep them in a state of understanding. As the leader sticks to arrangements and plans, other parties will be able to gain a clear idea of what is intended.
When the peacemaker acts, it should not be a surprise to anyone. It should be carefully anticipated and rehearsed, so that nothing goes wrong through lack of support.
The peacemaker keeps options open and resources available. The peacemaker leads a group, rather than driving, showing them clearly where they are going.
The different measures suited to the nine varieties of situation; the expediency of offering and asking for benefits; and the fundamental laws of human nature: these are things that must most certainly be studied.
One must not be hidebound in interpreting the rules for the nine varieties of situation.
When working on a project, the general principle is, that going a long way with a project brings commitment; going only a short way means lack of interest.
When you go a long way with a project, it is a serious situation. When you go only a short distance, it is a facile situation.
When you are no longer in tried-and-true territory, but move into new areas, you find yourself in unstable situations. When you have many contacts in an area, the situation is one of potential networking.
When the other party is committed to certain options, and you have few options left, it is a hemmed-in situation. When there is apparently only one course of action, it is a desperate situation.
Therefore, in a dispersive situation, I would inspire my staff with unity of purpose. In a facile situation, I would ensure that there is close communication between everyone involved.
In an unstable situation, I would work hard to bring all my resources to bear.
In an open situation, I would keep a careful eye on all key indicators and options. In a situation of potential networking, I would consolidate my useful contacts.
In a serious situation, I would try to ensure a continuous stream of resources. In a difficult situation, I would keep pressing on to get it over with.
In a hemmed-in situation, I would openly commit myself to one of the available options, showing support and solidarity for the other party's decision.
In a desperate situation, I would declare to my staff the impossibility of giving up at this point. For it is human nature to work hard and stubbornly when we can see no alternative, to expend a great effort to complete an onerous project when this is the only way to escape it.
We cannot enter into partnership with other organisations until we are familiar with their intentions. We are not fit to lead an organisation in a project unless we are aware of the shape of the situation - its difficulties and potentialities, its dangers and possibilities, its drawbacks and problems. We shall be unable to turn these things to our advantage unless we make use of experts in the field.
To be ignorant of any one of the following four or five principles does not befit a peacemaking leader.
When a peacemaking leader attempts a partnership with a powerful ally, the test of excellence is in aiding the concentration of the other party's resources. The peacemaker impresses potential partners, and their partners are also motivated to join the effort.
Hence, the peacemaker allies with all and sundry, and fosters the prosperity of other parties. The peacemaker is open and trustworthy, impressing potential partners. Thus the peacemaker will be invited to contribute to their projects and participate in their goals.
Combine reliability and adaptability. Be known for sticking to your commitments, but being prepared to be flexible, and you will be able to lead a large group as if it were a single person.
Do not exasperate your staff by presenting a fait accompli, without consultation or preparation. Be honest about difficulties as well as triumphs, and this will encourage them to do the same.
Give your staff large challenges, and they will rise to them; set them significant projects, and they will complete them successfully. For it is just at the point that people's capability is stretched that their true ability will be shown.
Success in peace is gained by not always going along with the other party.
If we yield and give up all the time, we will be seen as weak - and we will be. Some assertiveness will win us respect, and we will then be trusted to do a job well.
By keeping in regular communication with the other party, we shall succeed in doing them a favour.
On the day that you are put in charge, hold informative meetings, carefully review the available information, and set up lines of communication. Be forthright, proactive but helpful in management meetings, so that you may be seen as go-ahead but not threatening.
If the other party offers an opportunity, take it. Be prepared to help the other party by reinforcing what they value, and subtly contrive to make them look good.
Act in a way which will not be startling or threatening, and work with the other party until you are trusted enough to do something innovative.
Discard hard and fast rules. Mutual benefit is the only thing that matters, and this cannot be achieved by being conventional and timid.
At first, then, be noncommital, and play hard to get so that the other party will value you. Once an opportunity is offered, accept it before it can be withdrawn.
There are five ways of bringing about mutual benefit through gifts. The first is to give gifts to staff; the second is to offer the use of resources; the third is to provide means of gaining resources; the fourth is to enhance the other party's own ability to offer benefits; the fifth is to provide gifts to the organisation as a whole.
In order to bring about mutual benefit through gifts, we must have means available. The resources to offer gifts should always be kept in readiness.
Small economies which hinder your staff or your partners will in reality lead to large costs. Goodwill can be gained cheaply, but lost by cheapness, and it is then expensive to regain.
A gift need not be an object. An invitation to a meal or the offer of a drink is an effective gift which is not perceived as such, and can bring about many benefits.
There are proper moments for offering gifts, and special points in projects and in the year when gifts are appropriate.
The proper moment is when the relationship is going well; the special times are, besides the widely observed holidays and festivals, early in the project, at the point where enthusiasm is flagging, and at the end, for these are all times when gifts are appreciated.
In bringing about mutual benefit through gifts, one should be prepared to meet five possible developments:
1) When a gift is given, follow up at once with a proposal of mutual benefit.
2) If a gift has been given, but the reception is lukewarm, bide your time and do not make overtures.
The main point of giving gifts is to promote enthusiasm in the other party. If this does not happen, it means the other party is not ready to make an alliance, hence the need for patience.
3) When the impact of the gift is at its maximum, follow up with a proposal, if that is necessary; if the gift itself is doing the work for you, relax.
4) If conditions make it possible to offer a benefit from outside, do not wait for it to arise from inside, but offer your benefit at a favourable moment.
5) When you offer a gift, be seen to be in a position of greater resources. Do not offer a gift from an inferior position.
Enthusiasm among naturally cheerful people lasts a long time, but the enthusiasm of an introvert may disappear quickly.
In every organisation, the five developments connected with the giving of gifts must be known, the stages of the project tracked, and a watch kept for the appropriate moments.
Hence those who offer gifts as an aid to the bringing about of mutual benefit show intelligence; those who offer help gain standing.
By offering help, a friend may be made, but sometimes it is regarded as only what is due.
The fate of one who tries to bring about mutual benefit without cultivating the spirit of enterprise is an unhappy one, for the result is waste of time and general stagnation.
Those who want to make sure of succeeding in their projects must seize the favourable moments when they come and not shrink on occasion from heroic measures; that is to say, they must resort to such means of offering benefits as gifts, help and the like. What they must not do, and what will prove fatal, is to sit still and simply hold on to the advantages they have.
Hence the saying: The enlightened leader lays plans well ahead; the good peacemaker cultivates resources.
The peacemaking leader motivates staff with authority, knits them together with trustworthiness, and by rewards makes them servicable. If trust decays, there will be disruption; if rewards are deficient, instructions will not be respected.
Do not move unless you see an advantage; do not put your staff to work unless there is something to be gained; do not make offers unless the situation has potential.
No leader should put staff to work simply for self-satisfaction, or begin a project simply out of pride or annoyance.
If it will lead to mutual benefit, make a move. If not, stay where you are.
Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content. But an organisation that has once been destroyed can never again come into being; nor can resources which have been spent be regained.
Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good peacemaker full of caution. This is the way to keep an organisation at peace and a staff intact.
Recruiting a staff of a hundred and employing them for a long time involves a great drain on the resources of the organisation. The daily expense will amount to tens of thousands of dollars. There will be issues to address within and outside the organisation, and staff will become discontented and change jobs. The support staff will also be severely taxed.
Organisations may work together for years, striving for the benefit which is decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the other party's condition simply because one begrudges the outlay of a little time and money, is a profound disservice to your staff.
One who acts thus is no leader, no help to senior management, no gainer of mutual benefit.
Thus, what enables the wise manager and the good peacemaker to attempt and succeed, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary people, is information.
Now, this information cannot be gained from psychics; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, or by any deductive calculation.
Knowledge of the other party's situation can only be obtained from other people.
Hence the use of communicators, of which there are five types: 1) Consumer communicators; 2) inside communicators; 3) liaison communicators; 4) representative communicators; 5) ambassadorial communicators.
When these five kinds of communicator are at work, communication will be clear and open. This is called 'excellent grasp of the threads'. It is the leader's most precious faculty.
Having consumer communicators means gaining information from the people who use the other party's service or product, or from past clients of theirs.
Having inside communicators means gaining information from the leaders of the other party.
These are friendly, open people within the organisation who will speak frankly to you, from their position of special knowledge, of the needs which exist. Such people should be cultivated, and time should be spent with them. By having these friends within the other organisation, you are also in a position to strengthen and help its cohesion and to commend them to their superiors.
Caution is required with some internal communicators, who may for their own reasons attempt to make the organisation look better or worse than it really is. Care is also needed in using their information. Some managers do not view the dispensing of inside information to outsiders as beneficial, and sometimes it is not. It is appropriate to prevent a communicator from innocently telling you what you should not know.
Liaison communicators are specially assigned by the other party to communicate with you.
Representative communicators are the equivalent of internal communicators, but from the other point of view; these are communicators within your organisation who informally offer information to the other party, and so bind the two closer.
Ambassadorial communicators, finally, are those you appoint as liaisons to the other party.
Your ambassadorial communicator must be a person of keen intellect, though seen as ordinary and likable; with a casual approach, but considerable ability. The communicator must be well-informed, friendly, an independent thinker, able to be at ease with anyone, and to deal with suspicion and hostility.
Hence it is that nobody is more important than the communicators. None should be more liberally rewarded. None should be better informed.
Communicators cannot be usefully employed without a certain understanding of people.
In order to use them, one must know fact from falsehood, and be able to discriminate between honesty and pretense. Before using communicators we must assure ourselves as to their integrity of character and the extent of their experience and skill. A competent facade and a disposition to present the facts in the most advantageous way are more dangerous than strikes or equipment failure. It takes a person of genius to see through these things.
They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and straightforwardness.
Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one cannot make certain of the accuracy of their reports.
Be alert, and use your communicators for every kind of business.
Whether the object is to negotiate a merger, to propose a joint venture, or to make a sale, it is always necessary to begin by finding out the names of the managers, the partners, the directors, the personal assistants of those in management. Our communicators must be assigned to find out these and approach them.
The other party's staff must also be welcomed and given access to the information they need. We must build a relationship with them. Thus they become liaison communicators and valuable to the project.
It is through the information brought in by the liaison communicator that we are able to acquire and make use of internal and consumer communicators.
It is through the liaison communicator, again, that we are able to send our own communicators to the other party and have them introduced and welcomed.
The end and aim of communication in all its five varieties is knowledge of the other party; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the liaison communicator. Hence it is important that the trust of the liaison communicator be cultivated.
Hence it is only the enlightened leader and the wise peacemaker who will use the highest intelligence of their staff for communication, and so achieve great results.
Communicators are a most important element in peace, because upon them depends an organisation's ability to move.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
You are visitor number to this page since
29 November 1997.
This material is copyright 1997 to Mike McMillan. Use for profit is reserved to the author unless otherwise arranged.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.