Lykke's Model Of Strategic Theory Analysis

In Lykke’s model of Strategic Theory, he utilizes a three-legged stool as the metaphor in which the ends, ways, and means of the construct make up the three legs. Thus it helps to visualize the need for balance across the three aspects of strategic theory when evaluated for risks. Simply put, “If the ends, ways, and means are in acceptable proportion, the strategy probably is sound.” In Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians ignored, failed to recognize, or created (through assumptions or over complication) risks. By having risk equally across all three components of strategic theory, the stool could still be viewed as proportional and balanced in the simplest sense. The compounding risk at each component, however, …show more content…
There were three competing proposals presented by the three generals (Nicias, Lamachus, and Alcibiades) of how the Athenians should proceed. Similar to the ends construct, competing ideas are a risk in the sense that they detract from the detail and focus of one agreed upon idea. As seen above, Nicias spoke out against any campaign on Sicily since he was concerned that they would “leave many enemies behind [Athens]” This risk might have been more fully considered if not for the competing plans of Lamachus and Alcibiades. Lamachus proposes sailing straight for Syracuse to attack. The risk here would be not defending Athens or securing additional allies in the effort. The plan Alcibiades presents does address the latter as he wants to work to build an alliance with Greek Sicilians on the island before attacking Syracuse. This, however, exposes the risk Lamachus was trying to avoid where the Syracusans would be provided time to prepare. The Alcibiades swayed the Athenians and they approved his plan which placed two of the three generals executing a plan they did not support from the onset. This is only compounded when the general that did support the plan was condemned to death by Athens. The remaining two generals remain to execute a campaign that was partially based on a lack of understanding of the support they could expect which created …show more content…
Issues ranging from whether or not they should invade, what they hoped to gain, how they should go about it and at what cost, were all contested among the Athenian leaders. Not only did this create a risk to each of the constructs of strategy, it also compounded the risks by preventing the leaders from recognizing and addressing the risks associated with each individual portion. A short leg on the strategic stool in any one construct is already a strong indicator of the pending failure of a strategy. Short legs across all three are proportional but they do not make a stool tall enough to support a successful strategic