Strategy
Blog
DEENES
  1. Home
  2. Principles
  3. Paradoxical Trinity
20Principle · Group 3

Paradoxical Trinity

Clausewitz’s paradoxical trinity

“Every conflict is shaped at once by passion, chance and reason, and if you overlook one of these three forces, you miscalculate.”

No conflict runs purely according to plan, purely on emotion or purely by chance.

Group 3: Knowledge, Uncertainty and LeadershipT1 Classical Theory of War
Go to the in-depth section ↓
Three dots in teal and mist-blue form the corners of a triangle; in the middle, a golden circle hangs from a fine line and swings, drawn now toward one corner, now toward another, its path never tracing the same line twice. Then one corner fades, a straight line shows the planned route, and the golden circle still veers off, because the faded corner keeps pulling.
In short

Every conflict is shaped at once by passion, chance and reason, and if you overlook one of these three forces, you miscalculate.

What it’s about: No conflict runs purely according to plan, purely on emotion or purely by chance. Three forces are always at work at the same time: passion, with enthusiasm, pride, fear and hostility; the play of probability and chance, with weather, accidents and opportunities; and reason, which asks what the conflict is for and how the objective can be achieved. The balance between them is constantly shifting.

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

All three forces belong in the calculation. If you consider one of them the only true one, your plans will miss reality.

It does not say
That feelings are irrational and should therefore be ignored. They are a force in their own right that you have to reckon with.
It does not say
That you should surrender to moods or to fate. You keep the purpose in view.
It also says
The three forces cannot be neatly assigned to particular people, for example passion to the workforce and reason to management.
The explanationHow the principle works and what matters

When you plan, it is easy to see only reason. When you are in the middle of a conflict, you often see only passion, and when you look back, you put everything down to good or bad luck. The principle forces you to ask all three questions: What do we want to achieve? What do the people involved feel? What could get in the way?

The signs2 signs when you heed it · 3 when you overlook it
When you heed it
  • Alongside numbers and goals, your planning also includes the mood of the people involved and a plan B. Before important steps, you ask who might feel passed over.
  • After an outcome, you ask what share intention, emotion and chance had in it.
When you overlook it
  • You persuade with arguments and are surprised by resistance.
  • The unforeseen hits you with no reserve.
  • You credit successes to your plan and blame failures on bad luck.
The backgroundTradition T1 Classical Theory of War
  1. 1832
    OriginCarl von Clausewitz

    On War

  2. 1992
    SupplementedAlan D. Beyerchen

    Clausewitz, Nonlinearity, and the Unpredictability of War

  3. 1995
    SupplementedEdward J. Villacres and Christopher Bassford

    Reclaiming the Clausewitzian Trinity

  4. Tradition T1
    TraditionClassical Theory of War

    Carl von Clausewitz, Antoine-Henri Jomini, Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, Frederick William Lanchester

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

From Clausewitz’s “On War” (1832), Book I, Chapter 1, supplemented by the interpretations of Edward J. Villacres and Christopher Bassford and of Alan D. Beyerchen.

The research4 sources: 3 theories, 1 classic · 1832–1995 · with limitations of the research
4 sources1832–1995 period3 theories1 classic
Strength of evidence
  1. weak
  2. moderate
  3. strong

A classical theory and its interpretations, not a measurement; that overlooking one force leads to miscalculation is Carl von Clausewitz’s conclusion and has not been tested.

  1. 1832
    Classic
    Carl von Clausewitz

    “On War” (in German), Book I, Chapter 1, Section 28: War is a paradoxical trinity; a theory that ignores one of the three tendencies conflicts with reality.

  2. 1991
    Theory
    Martin van Creveld

    “The Transformation of War”: considers the trinity outdated because many wars are no longer fought between states.

  3. 1992
    Theory
    Alan D. Beyerchen

    “Clausewitz, Nonlinearity, and the Unpredictability of War”: Balancing between three points of attraction resembles a pendulum between three magnets, whose path cannot be predicted.

  4. 1995
    Theory
    Edward J. Villacres and Christopher Bassford

    “Reclaiming the Clausewitzian Trinity”: The trinity consists of passion, chance and reason; the people, the army and the government are a derived level.

Where the research reaches its limits

In 1991, Martin van Creveld considered the trinity outdated because many conflicts are no longer fought between states with a government, an army and a people; his criticism applies mainly to the derived level, not to the three basic forces. Applying the idea to companies, families or churches is an analogy: there, passion means not hatred but emotion and drive.

Read more: what research shows

The term appears at the end of the first chapter of Book I of “On War,” the only chapter Carl von Clausewitz considered finished. War, he writes, is a paradoxical trinity made up of primordial violence with hatred and enmity, of the play of probabilities and chance, and of its nature as an instrument of policy, which subjects it to reason. A theory that disregarded any one of these sides would immediately conflict with reality. In 1995, Edward J. Villacres and Christopher Bassford offered a new reading: the actual trinity consists of these three forces, while the assignment to the people, the army and the government is only a derived level. Alan D. Beyerchen compared this balancing act between three points of attraction to a pendulum swinging between three magnets, whose path cannot be predicted.

The related principles01 Primacy of Purpose · 19 Fog of Uncertainty · 46 Moral Forces · 86 Unintended Consequences
Primacy of PurposeMoral Forces

To go deeper, see 01 Primacy of Purpose (reason ties the conflict to a purpose) and 46 Moral Forces (passion as the source of moral forces)

Fog of Uncertainty

19 Fog of Uncertainty shows why chance never lets the situation become entirely clear

Unintended Consequences

86 Unintended Consequences takes it further: where the three forces interact, outcomes arise that no one intended

Read more: the full text

To go deeper, see 01 Primacy of Purpose (reason ties the conflict to a purpose) and 46 Moral Forces (passion as the source of moral forces); 19 Fog of Uncertainty shows why chance never lets the situation become entirely clear. 86 Unintended Consequences takes it further: where the three forces interact, outcomes arise that no one intended.

The action steps5 things you can actually do
  1. For every undertaking, draw three columns on one page: purpose and path, the feelings of those involved, possible incidents.
  2. Plan for passion as concretely as for the substance: conversations, involvement, time for objections.

  3. Set aside reserves and a plan B for chance, and watch out for the opportunities it offers.

  4. As things unfold, check which force is currently growing stronger, and shift your attention accordingly.

  5. Evaluate outcomes separately: What was due to the planning, what to the mood, what to chance?
The reflection questions3 questions: Which of the three forces do you most often leave out of your planning?
  1. Which of the three forces do you most often leave out of your planning?
  2. When did you last try to persuade with good reasons, and who felt unseen in the process?
  3. What do you blame your failures on: other people, bad luck or your plan?

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. Three dots in teal and mist-blue form the corners of a triangle
  2. In the middle, a golden circle hangs from a fine line and swings, drawn now toward one corner, now toward another, its path never tracing the same line twice
  3. Then one corner fades, a straight line shows the planned route, and the golden circle still veers off, because the faded corner keeps pulling
Strategy Check

Which force is missing from your calculation?

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

Start the Strategy Check
In context

Group 3: Knowledge, Uncertainty and Leadership

Guiding question: What do you know, and how do you lead when you don’t know?

Stage 2 of 5: Understand the situation

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.

Culture & Sports

The Miracle of Bern and the Paradoxical Trinity

On July 4, 1954, in the World Cup final in Bern, West Germany beats Hungary, a team considered unbeatable, 3–2. Fighting spirit, rain and clever preparation tip the balance. The match shows how passion, chance and reason work together.

Paradoxical Trinity
BusinessMedia

GameStop, Reddit and the Paradoxical Trinity

In January 2021, retail investors from a Reddit forum drive the stock of the video game retailer GameStop to dizzying heights. Hedge funds that had bet on falling prices lose billions. Their models had accounted for reason, but not for passion and chance.

Paradoxical Trinity
Government

David Cameron, the Brexit Referendum and the Paradoxical Trinity

In 2013, David Cameron promises a referendum on EU membership to placate his party. He is counting on winning clearly with persuasiveness and economic arguments. On June 23, 2016, a narrow majority votes to leave, and Cameron announces his resignation. This counterexample shows what happens when you underestimate passion.

Paradoxical Trinity
Culture & Sports

Movie: Rush

The film tells the story of the 1976 Formula One season as a duel between the daredevil James Hunt and the calculating Niki Lauda. It is decided by an accident, by rain and by a clear weighing of risks. Here passion, chance and reason visibly wrestle with one another.

Paradoxical Trinity
FAQ

Questions about the Paradoxical Trinity

What does the Paradoxical Trinity say?

Every conflict is shaped by three forces at once: passion, chance and reason. If you pay attention to only one or two of them, you don’t understand the conflict and you plan wrongly.

Where does the Paradoxical Trinity come from?

From Carl von Clausewitz, who coined the term at the end of Book I, Chapter 1 of his work “On War.” Christopher Bassford and Alan D. Beyerchen have shown how modern this idea is.

What examples are there?

The Miracle of Bern in 1954, the GameStop frenzy of 2021 and, as a counterexample, the 2016 Brexit referendum. Then there is the film “Rush.”

How well is the Paradoxical Trinity supported by research?

Evidence: weak – a classical theory and its interpretations, not a measurement; that overlooking one force leads to miscalculation is Carl von Clausewitz’s conclusion and has not been tested.

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: Paradoxical Trinity.