Strategy
Blog
DEENES
  1. Home
  2. Principles
  3. Better End State
03Principle · Group 1

Better End State

Avoiding a Pyrrhic victory

“A victory is a success only if the situation afterward is better than before; if you look only at winning, you often lose the peace.”

Success is measured not by victory but by the situation afterward.

Group 1: Purpose and ObjectiveT3 Indirect Strategy and Maneuver
Go to the in-depth section ↓
Two circles pull on a line above a chasm; the left one wins, the right one falls in, and mist-blue dots gather above the chasm into a dark cloud. The image rewinds, and again the left circle wins, but this time a golden line pulls the right one out, together they lay a golden arch across the chasm, and the cloud dissolves.
In short

A victory is a success only if the situation afterward is better than before; if you look only at winning, you often lose the peace.

What it’s about: Success is measured not by victory but by the situation afterward. Better means better than before, at least from your point of view, and ideally in a way the other side can also live with. Victory opens up the possibility of a better state. It is not that state yet.

In depth

The principle in detail

Three steps through the principle: grasp it, place it, put it to work. Open each topic on its own.

The core messageCore statement and 3 clarifications
In essence

A victory is a way station. Whether it was a success is shown by the situation afterward.

It does not say
That you should give in. Some conflicts require a clear defeat of the other side before a better state becomes possible.
It does not say
That “better” means the same thing for everyone. A better state for one side can be worse for others.
It also says
If you make maximum demands just because you can, you are often preparing the next conflict.
The explanationConflicts live on in memory.

Conflicts live on in memory.

People who can live with the outcome help sustain a peace. People who were humiliated wait for the chance to reverse it.

You almost always go on living with the other side afterward, as a colleague, customer, neighbor or family member. That is why the question of what comes after belongs at the beginning of a confrontation, not at its end.

The question

What should things look like when this is over?

The signs3 signs when you heed it · 3 when you overlook it
When you heed it
  • Before a tough negotiation, you ask what working together should look like afterward.
  • You leave the other side a way to save face.
  • After winning a dispute, you reach out to the other side.
When you overlook it
  • You plan up to the moment of victory and no further.
  • Decisions that were forced through are slow-walked afterward.
  • The losing side tells a completely different story about the outcome than you do.
The backgroundFrom Basil Henry Liddell Hart’s “Strategy” (1954). · T3 Indirect Strategy and Maneuver
  1. 1954
    OriginBasil Henry Liddell Hart

    Strategy

  2. 1971
    SupplementedFred Charles Iklé

    Every War Must End

  3. 1981
    SupplementedRoger Fisher and William Ury

    Getting to Yes

  4. 2010
    SupplementedGideon Rose

    How Wars End

  5. Tradition T3
    TraditionIndirect Strategy and Maneuver

    Basil Henry Liddell Hart, John Richard Boyd, Edward N. Luttwak, André Beaufre

    See the tradition on the Origin page
Read more: the full background

From Basil Henry Liddell Hart’s “Strategy” (1954). Supplemented by the work of Fred Charles Iklé and Gideon Rose on how wars end and by the negotiation approach of Roger Fisher and William Ury.

The research5 sources: 2 theories, 2 case studies, 1 classic · 1954–2010 · with limitations of the research
5 sources1954–2010 period2 theories2 case studies1 classic
Strength of evidence
  1. weak
  2. moderate
  3. strong

Historical case analyses and a widely used approach to negotiation support the idea, but it has not been measured; Basil Henry Liddell Hart’s own credibility is disputed.

  1. 1954
    Classic
    Basil Henry Liddell Hart

    “Strategy: The Indirect Approach”: the object in war is a better state of peace, even if it is better only from your own point of view.

  2. 1971
    Theory
    Fred Charles Iklé

    “Every War Must End”: governments plan how wars begin and how they are waged, but hardly how they end.

  3. 1981
    Theory
    Roger Fisher and William Ury

    “Getting to Yes”: look for solutions that protect the interests of both sides and preserve the relationship.

  4. 1988
    Case study
    John J. Mearsheimer

    “Liddell Hart and the Weight of History”: Basil Henry Liddell Hart embellished his own influence on history after the fact.

  5. 2010
    Case study
    Gideon Rose

    “How Wars End”: the United States has repeatedly failed to plan adequately for the period after victory.

Where the research reaches its limits
  • “Better” depends on your vantage point, and Basil Henry Liddell Hart says so himself.
  • The Marshall Plan, for instance, also deepened the division of Europe.
  • Some conflicts require a clear defeat of the opponent before a better state becomes possible, as in 1945.
  • That a victory without regard for what comes after “often” loses the peace rests on selected cases, not on a count.
  • And John J. Mearsheimer showed that Basil Henry Liddell Hart embellished his own role.
Read more: what research shows

In “Strategy” (1954), Basil Henry Liddell Hart wrote, in essence, that the object in war is “a better state of peace,” even if only from your own point of view; that is why a war must be conducted with the desired peace in mind. In “Every War Must End” (1971), Fred Charles Iklé showed that governments put a great deal of effort into starting and waging wars but little into ending them. In “How Wars End” (2010), Gideon Rose described how, in the 20th and early 21st centuries, the United States repeatedly failed to plan adequately for the period after victory. In 1981, Roger Fisher and William Ury recommended solutions for negotiations that protect the interests of both sides and preserve the relationship. These are historical analyses and recommendations, not measurements.

The related principles01 Primacy of Purpose · 27 Victory without Fighting · 52 Golden Bridge · 86 Unintended Consequences
Primacy of Purpose

The principle is the touchstone for 01 Primacy of Purpose

Victory without Fighting

27 Victory without Fighting shows that the best end state often arises when the opponent does not have to be destroyed at all

Golden Bridge

52 Golden Bridge makes a lasting peace easier by offering an honorable way out

Unintended Consequences

86 Unintended Consequences reminds you that a victory can also make the situation afterward worse

Read more: the full text

The principle is the touchstone for 01 Primacy of Purpose; 27 Victory without Fighting shows that the best end state often arises when the opponent does not have to be destroyed at all, 52 Golden Bridge makes a lasting peace easier by offering an honorable way out, and 86 Unintended Consequences reminds you that a victory can also make the situation afterward worse.

The action steps5 action steps: Before every major confrontation, describe in three sentences the state you want afterward.

  1. Before every major confrontation, describe in three sentences the state you want afterward.

  2. Ask yourself what story the other side will tell about the outcome and whether you can live with it.

  3. Drop demands that only humiliate and do nothing for the state afterward.

  4. Plan the time after the decision as carefully as the decision itself: Who will work with whom afterward, and what will that take?

  5. After winning a dispute, be the first to reach out to the losing side.

The reflection questions3 questions: Which dispute did you win while losing something you need today?
  1. Which dispute did you win while losing something you need today?
  2. What should things look like after the confrontation that lies ahead of you?
  3. What story will the other side tell about the outcome?

Take your time with one question. Write down your answer – or talk it over with someone you trust.

To finish
The picture to rememberThe animation once more, with an explanation
  1. Two circles pull on a line above a chasm
  2. The left one wins, the right one falls in, and mist-blue dots gather above the chasm into a dark cloud
  3. The image rewinds, and again the left circle wins, but this time a golden line pulls the right one out, together they lay a golden arch across the chasm, and the cloud dissolves
Strategy Check

What should things look like afterward?

Get your profile across all 12 groups in about 10 to 15 minutes.

Start the Strategy Check
In context

Group 1: Purpose and Objective

Guiding question: What are you fighting for, and what should be left standing at the end?

Stage 1 of 5: Clarify

Where the 92 principles come from: eight traditions of strategy, from classical war theory to dealing with uncertainty.

More about the origin

Background: WEGVISOR’s own selection from the strategy literature · More about the origin

Examples

The principle in practice

From the different spheres of society.

GovernmentBusiness

The Marshall Plan and the Better End State

After the Second World War, the United States spends about $13 billion on rebuilding Europe, including its former enemy, Germany. The Marshall Plan shows that a victory is worth something only if the situation afterward is more stable than before.

Better End State
GovernmentCulture & Sports

Nelson Mandela, the Springboks and the Better End State

On June 24, 1995, wearing a Springbok jersey, Nelson Mandela hands the Rugby World Cup trophy to the captain of the South African team. For many Black South Africans, that jersey was a symbol of apartheid, and Mandela turns it into a sign of reconciliation, because he wants to win not just power but a country in which everyone can live.

Better End State
Government

The Treaty of Versailles and the Better End State

On June 28, 1919, Germany signs the peace treaty with the victors of the First World War in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. The war has been won, but the peace that follows lasts only 20 years, and the treaty becomes the best-known counterexample to the Marshall Plan.

Better End State
Government

Movie: Lincoln

In January 1865, the American Civil War is almost won. “Lincoln” (2012) shows why Abraham Lincoln wants to get the 13th Amendment through the House of Representatives before peace comes: the victory is to leave behind a state in which slavery cannot return.

Better End State
FAQ

Questions about the Better End State

What does the principle of the Better End State say?

Success is measured not by victory itself but by whether the situation afterward is better than before. If you win without thinking about what comes after, you often prepare the next conflict.

Where does the principle of the Better End State come from?

From the British strategist Basil Henry Liddell Hart, who in “Strategy” (1954) described a better peace as the object of every war. Fred Charles Iklé and Gideon Rose have shown how often states fail to plan adequately for the end of wars.

What are some examples?

Well-known examples include the Marshall Plan, Nelson Mandela at the 1995 Rugby World Cup and, as a counterexample, the Treaty of Versailles. On film, “Lincoln” shows it.

How well is the Better End State supported by research?

Evidence: moderate – historical case analyses and a widely used approach to negotiation support the idea, but it has not been measured; Basil Henry Liddell Hart’s own credibility is disputed.

Your next step

Make strategy effective – together with WEGVISOR

Reading changes how you think. Applying changes your results. Choose how you want to continue.

Request Strategy Coaching

We will get back to you personally.

You came from: Better End State.