Winning without the fight

Sunzi wrote: the best is to take the enemy's country whole and intact. To shatter it is a lesser thing. The highest form of generalship is to attack the enemy's plans; the lowest is to besiege cities.

Then: the skilled commander subdues the enemy's army without battle, and takes the cities without assault. His aim is to take everything intact, and thus his troops are not worn out and the gains are complete.

People read this as strategy and miss the accounting. He's saying that a win purchased with a shattered city is a loss dressed up as a win.

Look at the arguments people have. The argument where you win conclusively, with the airtight point, in a room with witnesses, and the other person concedes. What did you actually get. There's a version of relationship damage that no apology repairs, and it usually arrives on a Tuesday for something worth less than ten dollars.

The professional version is the same. You can win the meeting and lose the client. You can be right about the process and lose the team.

The discipline is to count cost before the contest, and to ask whether the thing is available without it.

MOJOWAY keeps a record of how the last three conflicts went, and what was won, and what was paid. That ledger is a better teacher than advice, because it's yours.