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
A direct attack on a strength is costly and hardens resistance. The path the other side does not expect meets less defense.
- It does not say
- That you should deceive. A detour is something other than a lie, and in the end you say openly what you are after.
- It does not say
- That the detour is always better. If the other side is weak, if time is pressing or if the detour scatters your forces, the direct route is often right.
- It also says
- Indirect routes need patience and a clear objective. If you only evade, you lose your way.
The explanationPeople fend off an accusation, but not a story about a stranger.
This works because every defense rests on an expectation. People fend off an accusation, but not a story about a stranger.
A detour is not a lie. If you take an indirect route, you still say clearly in the end what you are after, and you know beforehand where the detour leads.
Where are you running into a wall right now, and where does it end?
The signs3 signs when you heed it · 3 when you overlook it
- When you meet resistance, you first ask what the other side is prepared for.
- You ask questions instead of repeating accusations.
- If the main road is blocked, you look for partners, other channels or a small first step.
- You repeat the same argument, louder and more often.
- Conversations end in justifications.
- You throw more and more resources at the same point, and the resistance grows.
The backgroundFrom Basil Henry Liddell Hart’s work “Strategy” (1954; earlier versions 1929 and 1941). · T3 Indirect Strategy and Maneuver
- 5th c. BCSupplementedSun Tzu
The Art of War
- 1954OriginBasil Henry Liddell Hart
Strategy
- 2010SupplementedJohn Kay
Obliquity
- Tradition T3TraditionIndirect 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 work “Strategy” (1954; earlier versions 1929 and 1941). Supplemented by Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” and John Kay’s “Obliquity” (2010).
The research4 sources: 2 classics, 1 case study, 1 theory · 1954–2010 · with limitations of the research
- weak
- moderate
- strong
A historical interpretation without systematic testing; the term is so broad that almost any success can be read as indirect in hindsight.
- 1988John J. Mearsheimer
“Liddell Hart and the Weight of History”: tests Liddell Hart’s claim to have influenced the German panzer commanders against the sources and finds it exaggerated.
- 2010John Kay
“Obliquity”: many goals, such as profit or happiness, are better reached by indirect routes than by pursuing them directly.
- Critics consider the term so broad that almost any success can be interpreted as indirect in hindsight.
- Sometimes the direct route is simply right: when the opponent is weak, when time is pressing or when a detour scatters your own forces.
- The sources do not show that detours provoke less resistance in conversations and in leadership; that is an extrapolation.
Read more: what research shows
The term was coined by the British military historian Basil Henry Liddell Hart. In the First World War he had seen how frontal attacks on the Western Front cost enormous casualties without bringing a decision. In a study published in 1929, expanded in 1941 and reworked in 1954 as “Strategy,” he interpreted wars from antiquity to his own time: decisive successes, he concluded, had mostly come from movements that threw the opponent off balance physically and psychologically. Sun Tzu had already advised avoiding what is strong and striking at what is weak. John Kay applies the idea to business and life: many goals are better reached by indirect routes than by pursuing them directly. These are historical interpretations and essays, not measurements. John J. Mearsheimer has also shown from the sources that Liddell Hart exaggerated his own influence after the fact.
The related principles27 Victory without Fighting · 28 The Direct and the Indirect · 29 Emptiness and Fullness · 32 Surprise
To go deeper, see 28 The Direct and the Indirect (Sun Tzu’s pairing of the force that pins down and the force that surprises, as a precursor) and 32 Surprise (the line of least expectation depends on the other side not expecting it)
29 Emptiness and Fullness shows where the detour usually leads: to where the opponent is weak
27 Victory without Fighting names the objective it often reaches
Read more: the full text
To go deeper, see 28 The Direct and the Indirect (Sun Tzu’s pairing of the force that pins down and the force that surprises, as a precursor) and 32 Surprise (the line of least expectation depends on the other side not expecting it). 29 Emptiness and Fullness shows where the detour usually leads: to where the opponent is weak; 27 Victory without Fighting names the objective it often reaches.
The action steps5 action steps: Take a deadlocked conflict and write down what the other side expects from you.
Take a deadlocked conflict and write down what the other side expects from you.
- Ask yourself which path they are not guarding: a question instead of an accusation, a partner instead of direct contact, a small step instead of the whole demand.
If you have to criticize, first let the other person assess what happened.
Decide beforehand where the detour is meant to lead and when you will say openly what you want.
- Check whether the direct route is right after all: when resistance is weak, when time is pressing or when a detour would splinter your forces.
The reflection questions3 questions: Where are you pushing against resistance right now that grows firmer with every attempt?
- Where are you pushing against resistance right now that grows firmer with every attempt?
- What does the person standing in your way expect, and what do they not expect?
- When did you last take a detour and still say clearly in the end what you wanted?
Take your time with one question. Write down your answer – or talk it over with someone you trust.
The picture to rememberThe animation once more, with an explanation
- A teal dot bounces three times off a mist-blue line, and the line grows thicker with each thrust
- The picture widens, the line reveals an open end, and the dot travels around it as a golden arc to the target circle, which lights up in gold
How the principle shows up in practice
Sesame Street, 1969
Joan Ganz Cooney does not fight television; she uses the pace and style of advertising to teach preschool children letters and numbers.
IKEA, 1961 onward
Boycotted by the Swedish furniture trade, Ingvar Kamprad has furniture made in Poland, beyond the reach of his opponents, and gains a price advantage.
Egon Bahr, 1963
In Tutzing, with “change through rapprochement,” he bets on contact instead of confrontation and lays the foundation for the new Ostpolitik.
Where are you running into a wall?
Get your profile across all 12 groups in about 10 to 15 minutes.
Start the Strategy CheckGroup 4: Deception and Indirection
Guiding question: How do you reach your goal without charging head-on?
Stage 3 of 5: Choose the path
- Anchor principle of the group
It sums up the group’s guiding question; deception, surprise, stratagems and the interplay of direct and indirect are the means of taking this route.
The other 8 principles in the group build on it.
- TraditionIndirect Strategy and Maneuver
Basil Henry Liddell Hart, John Richard Boyd, Edward N. Luttwak, André Beaufre
Where the 92 principles come from: eight traditions of strategy, from classical war theory to dealing with uncertainty.
More about the originBackground: WEGVISOR’s own selection from the strategy literature · More about the origin
