The WAY to WOW Shows
The 24-Episode Campaign: Strategy 8
March 24, 2026
Automatically generated from YouTube captions; names and wording may contain errors.

[0:02] Who are you?

[0:05] >> [music]

[0:05] >> And where are you going? What do you want? [music]

[0:15] >> [music]

[0:18] >> Hello and welcome to business lessons from the military. I'm your host Kevin Bemel and I'm here every Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time to talk about military history, doctrine, and leadership practices from which I distill lessons that we can apply to our businesses and professional practices. So, today is episode 8 of the 24 campaign series that I started 8 weeks ago. And it's it's the last in the strategy section. So, the 24 episodes are divided

[0:55] into five sections and we'll we'll start a new section next week, but today we're going to wrap up the um uh the strategy section talking about retreat done right. So, I think this is a an off mis- an often misunderstood aspect of military strategy. So, uh retreat is too often considered

[1:30] uh ig- ignominious, um a sign of failure. One of my favorite military figures is as those of you who watch the show know is is General George Patton who when um when Montgomery would say he wanted to pull back and sort of regather his forces, General Patton replied, "I don't like to have to pay for the same ground twice." Now, of course, there's that that's that's a

[2:06] a good philosophy in general, but there are times when withdrawal makes sense. And and indeed there were times when uh Patton withdrew or in essence avoided a fight because he realized that there was there was no reason to waste the resources to take the risk of of his men being of some of his men being killed and wounded

[2:42] and to take the time to deal with a particular obstacle. I'm trying to remember the name of the city. Koblenz is coming to mind, but I don't think that's that's the correct name. But there was one particular city as Patton's Third Army was sweeping into Germany, it was heavily fortified and at [clears throat] first Patton decided to decided to attack it, but then he realized he could just bypass it not unlike the strategy in the Pacific where

[3:18] certain islands occupied by the Japanese were bypassed and allowed to wither on the vine. Right? And so he withdrew from from that siege and just continued on heading east. Right? So, retreat is part of a a sound strategy in [snorts] obtaining the larger objective of of a war of of a combat operation of some type. And and so I think that to a certain extent we need to reframe our

[3:54] perception of what retreat means. So, yes, there are times when retreat means defeat uh unfortunately. Uh but the two are not necessarily the same thing. And and so that's if you go away with nothing from today other than that concept, I think I hopefully I will have instilled in you something that will be of of benefit to you of of real benefit as you continue to pursue your you know,

[4:30] your business career and building your practice etc. So,

[4:35] >> [clears throat]

[4:35] >> the same thing is true in in the business world. So, yes, sometimes retreat from um the most obvious case would be the launch of a new product or service. Sometimes that retreat is indeed a defeat and I'll talk about probably a couple of those during today's show. But uh I think that even in the examples I give, um the retreat can be reframed in the the strategic concept that allowed these

[5:12] companies, once they at least at least finally came to the realization that the product they were promoting was was not going to benefit the company short or long term, that the decision to retreat, while it may have been a tactical loss, was a strategic victory because it allowed the companies to to refocus resources, time, personnel, etc. on more fruitful avenues that

[5:47] allowed the companies to continue to prosper. Right? And so, uh when we when we um when we think about retreat, often times uh the psychological barrier to doing so is the most difficult one to overcome. So, leaders are often they they get the idea, "I need to push through. I need to fight harder. I should never quit." Right? And

[6:23] and I know for for myself in my own career, when I had my real estate company prior to joining the Navy, uh as as the uh opportunity for small property management companies was starting to decline because of the the the downturn in the market, people turning to larger companies that were better capitalized, etc. I I developed this this mindset that I just couldn't quit. That that would be

[6:58] giving up.

[6:59] >> [clears throat and cough]

[7:00] >> And pardon me, in the end and in the end

[7:12] >> [clears throat]

[7:13] >> I prevented myself from exploring other strategic options that may have led to greater success. And so, we we we need to fight the mindset that says uh retreat, withdrawal is wrong. Sometimes it is the answer. Sometimes it is indeed the best answer. Okay? And and it might be better

[7:48] if we reframe the idea of retreat as strategic repositioning. Now, I'm not a big fan of language that hides the truth of a situation. Having said that, uh I think that because of the potency that the term retreat carries, that perhaps thinking of it in those terms, strategic repositioning, it will be will be very useful. Okay? So, let's let's talk now about retreat or

[8:27] withdrawal as a deliberate operation. Okay? So,

[8:33] >> [snorts]

[8:33] >> there are two ways that withdrawal can happen. One is leaders can decide to withdraw in an orderly fashion. The other is a force can be forced to withdraw by the actions of the enemy. Those are very different. Okay? So, let's let's talk about the first option, which is withdrawal as a deliberate operation. So, uh retreat, when it's done correctly, it's it's not a panic-based maneuver, it is a

[9:10] planned maneuver. It's done for various reasons. So, it it could be done to delay operations. So, it it it slows the enemy while you have time to reposition, to to re-equip, to bring replacements forward, etc. Right? So, retreat as a delaying operation can be a good way to marshal more effectively marshal your resources for

[9:46] re-engagement. Another [snorts] another um uh reason that a withdrawal operation may be mounted militarily is it's it's a retrograde operation where this this is essentially what I described Patton doing, where he realized he he he he could just move away from this target with no impact on the larger goal, and he could move away from that that center of enemy pressure, if you will,

[10:22] and continue on and actually just ignore it and engage the enemy in a way that the enemy was more vulnerable and therefore Patton and his and third army had a greater likelihood of of being successful. And then there's withdrawal under pressure, where perhaps the force that that one is meeting indeed has the advantage, rather than waiting for that advantage to become overwhelming and

[10:57] overrun one's force. So, one does a a controlled disengagement from the active conflict, pull pulls back in a regimented way, which is a much more effective maneuver than to get to the point where one's forces are overwhelmed and therefore a panic ensues. Okay, so these all of these maneuvers are are looking to do one or more of of the following. One is to preserve

[11:33] combat power, right? To live to fight another day. That's that's crucial. Okay, once, you know, God forbid, soldiers, or for that matter, we could we could be talking about this in the context of ships as well, but soldiers, sailors, Marines. Once they're dead, they're dead. You know, there and and so one's force is irretrievably damaged, and and you say, "Well, no, you just call up more forces." Well, yes, but, right? In the short term especially, manpower

[12:08] is limited, especially properly trained manpower, right? So, preserving combat power, and I'm talking about human combat power, but the same thing is true in terms of material, whether it's vehicles, ships, etc. Okay, preserving that to fight another day can be critical. Next is one can gain better terrain on which to fight. Now, perhaps one had, you know, the commander had faulty intelligence about the topography over which a battle was was going to be fought, and he

[12:44] realizes, "Wait a minute, this is not ground on which I can be maximally effective. I'm better off withdrawing and attacking on on different terrain, okay? So, getting a better establishing better conditions for victory it's another reason why these planned withdrawals can be effective. Next, it may be that one can a commander can consolidate his forces, okay? And while in general, you know, doctrine is

[13:21] don't don't separate your forces, of course, in something as large as an army, where you have multiple core and divisions, it may make a lot of sense to divide your units into a multi-pronged attack. Having said that, it may become evident that at that certain certain points of the attack are going to be much more harder much more harder, are going to be harder to break through, and therefore it makes sense to perhaps disengage from

[13:58] those points, bring your consolidate your forces to hit at the point where it looks like the enemy is most vulnerable. Okay? And then finally, it gives time and and sort of breathing space to prepare for a counterattack. So, if if a commander is faced with what appears to be potentially overwhelming force, so then rather than just you know, stand and and fight it out, he he might be better off to pull back in an ordered

[14:34] you know, in a planned maneuver, in an orderly retreat to a place where he can then consolidate his forces, plan a counterattack, and then launch that counterattack without being under the heat of of constant combat, right? So, from from a military standpoint, all of those are are the reasons for making one of these planned withdrawals. So, retreat then is really a tool for

[15:09] preserving strategic advantage. It is not a signal of defeat, okay? And and that's why I started out with reframing how we look at withdrawal. So,

[15:22] >> [clears throat]

[15:23] >> another historical example of this is [snorts] when Napoleon and the French army invaded Russia, right? So, the the French army what was probably the greatest fighting force of its day. So, we're talking about very very end of the 1700s, early 1800s, when Napoleon was in power. And he built up a military force that was truly extraordinary. And his you know, probably one of his

[16:01] perhaps his most foolish decision was to invade Russia. And the reason it turned out to be so foolish is because the Imperial Russian forces were able to use the strategic withdrawal to such an advantage that they eventually were able to effectively defeat Napoleon, who until that time had essentially been undefeated. Right? And so, what the Russian commanders did was rather than defending Russian territory

[16:37] at all costs, is they essentially traded space for time. So, they would they would engage with the French, and then they would withdraw, and the French surged forward. And while doing that, the Russian commanders preserved their fighting force, but they drew the French ever deeper into Russia, stretching their supply lines, and and at the same time avoiding a decisive defeat, right? So, the the the Russian Imperial Army kept, you know, kept itself alive to

[17:12] keep fighting to keep fighting. They they drew the invading army ever deeper into Russia, and as importantly, ever deeper into the winter season, where you know, fighting in the snow and in the freezing cold, far from your supply lines, or with very long supply lines, it weakened the invading army until the results were just catastrophic for Napoleon and his forces, and they eventually they had then the the French

[17:49] army eventually had to withdraw. Napoleon realized he was not going to be successful in his Russian campaign. And so,

[17:58] >> [clears throat]

[17:59] >> if if the Russian commanders, if the Tsar had seen withdrawal as as a defeat, as a kind of an existential defeat, they they probably would not have used that maneuver, and it's possible that they that indeed Russia would have been conquered by Napoleon. And so, but they realized that controlled retreat, planned maneuvers was actually the key to victory in in in this particular war. So,

[18:37] the so so just kind of kind of summarizing this up, sometimes [snorts] the fastest way to win is to stop fighting under unfavorable terms, okay? And and that that is a a lesson that we in in the business world need to take to heart. We may plan thoroughly, we may do our best to set the conditions of engagement as we enter a market, or or as we as we bring a new product out, or a new service out, however,

[19:12] once we're in the heat of that new business initiative, we need to examine, are we really fighting on the most favorable terms, or are we fighting on unfavorable terms, and are we better off to stop, regroup, okay? And live to fight another day, just like the Imperial Russian Army. So, so again, summarizing, disciplined withdrawal, it's planned, it's controlled, it preserves strength,

[19:48] and it sets the conditions for future success. Whereas a disorganized retreat, it's reactive, it's chaotic, it's driven by fear, and oftentimes it leads to collapse. So, the difference between the two is leadership and in particular in particular

[20:09] >> [clears throat]

[20:10] >> leadership that is able to rise to the moment, to cogently examine the situation that's in front of them and make decisions not based on on ego, not based on uh fear of uh you know, reprisal or fear of what you know, civilian leadership might do or or what the populace might do, but make the best decision for the long-term success of of the battle that's being fought.

[20:46] So, uh I um I have uh five thoughts on on how to apply this to businesses, but let's take a quick break and we'll and then I'll come back and talk about those.

[20:59] >> [clears throat]

[21:00] >> When life brings unexpected changes, managing inherited property shouldn't add to your stress. Magnum Properties specializes in probate and trust real estate management. We handle the complexities while you focus on what matters most. From property maintenance to tenant relations, from legal compliance to maximizing value, we're your trusted partner through every step. Magnum Properties Inc., turning property challenges into peace of mind. Call us today at 213-264-4396

[21:38] or visit magnumprops.com. Okay. So, before I get to the specific items, I want to talk about why businesses struggle with retreat. Okay, so many organizations find they cannot disengage from a strategy. And and some of the the common reasons are first of all, a sunk cost bias, i.e., well, we've already invested so much into this, we we can't abandon it and abandon that

[22:13] investment. But of course, if if a if a particular initiative is not going to work, that investment has already been lost. And so, to continue to invest in an initiative that is not part of a winning strategy does not make sense. And so, leaders need to do their best not to get caught by the sunk cost fallacy. Okay, another reason is executive ego. So, especially if a

[22:48] particular executive uh has been the one to initiate a strategy, they're they're very likely to not want to let go of it because they may feel, and perhaps rightly so, that if they acknowledge that they that that the company needs to retreat from a particular strategy, that could mean that their tenure in leadership is is over. And we we see this especially in companies that are struggling. So, we saw it with um

[23:23] with Disney during the time that Bob Chapek was was CEO, he pursued a particular strategy um uh that that was um much more focused on financial goals and and defocused the creative side of the business, and it caused a rebellion for all intents and purposes among um not just at Disney, but also with various uh partners with with whom Disney had content creation arrangements. And

[24:00] and eventually Chapek had to uh retreat, and indeed it did spell uh you know, the end of his tenure. However, had he you know, had he considered continued to pursue the strategy, it's it's likely that uh there would have been even more damage done to Disney uh than was the case. Okay, so uh and and so, you know, e- executives need to be on their guard uh not to let their ego uh take over

[24:38] decision-making. Had Chapek realized sooner that that he was alienating uh key key people in the organization and key partners, he could have switched strategy more quickly, and he might still be the CEO of Disney. Okay, next is fear of market perception. So, companies often are concerned that if they withdraw from a particular initiative, so customers might look at that or clients might look at that and and and say, oh,

[25:13] well, this is this is a kind of a losing company, and so I don't want to do business with it anymore. That that's, you know, particularly uh uh particularly important when you have consumer-facing goods. So, if you remember, I think now it's about 2 3 years ago, the debacle with with Bud Light uh where they advertised a product using a transgender social media influencer, and it really uh I think enraged is is not an is is not

[25:51] an over over-dramatic word, a a large section of the of their of the clientele, if you will, the customer base for Bud Light. And as a result, and and yet, you know, they didn't First of all, they didn't recognize the the the woman in charge of that marketing campaign did not recognize who Bud Light's core customers were, number one. And number two, faced with this rebellion, rather than um stepping back,

[26:27] um she um essentially doubled down. And and so, um you know, she was she was concerned about the perception of other constituents besides customers, and so the fear of of the market perception of backing down in this case uh turned out to to be her undoing, right? And so again, just like with executive ego, the fear of market perception needs to be looked at in the broader context of what am what am I

[27:04] what is a company really looking to accomplish, and how can it do that? There may be a short-term cost, there may be a short-term hit that that is caused by a retreat, but that probably will be better than the long-term hit. So, in in the case of Bud Light, of course, uh they lost uh being the number one uh beer in in in the in the country, they were overtaken by Modelo, right? And Modelo was able to take advantage of this you know,

[27:40] of this whole debacle. Um And then finally, there's internal and even external political pressures that are brought to bear, right? And that's another part of of the Bud Light situation. So, there were both internal political pressures to maintain the campaign, um but there were and there were and there were external political pressures on the one hand to maintain it on and on the other hand to withdraw. And so, um Budweiser found itself in in a essentially a no-win situation, and

[28:16] eventually um it it I mean, it it didn't really withdraw, um but it it ended up taking a tremendous hit as a result of its decision not to retreat. And so, leaders who become emotionally invested in their decisions oftentimes pay a big price. Well, uh and their companies pay a big price as well. So, oftentimes the the the um reluctance to retreat causes greater losses and a delay in recovery,

[28:54] right? So, it's it's oftentimes much better to just face the music, as they say, and and conduct an orderly retreat. Okay, so, let's look at some uh some specifics of this of business doctrine that we can apply. So, if we have a a a failing product or a failing service, one that is not catching on with the public, or maybe it's was something that's been popular for quite some time, but now it's become outmoded. So,

[29:29] uh rather than drag it out, uh you know, leaders need to take a a close, hard, regular look at what's going on, and do the hard evaluation. So, what are customer adoption rates? What is the timeline to reach profitability? And what is the opportunity cost of continued investment? So, as more money is put into what may be a losing proposition, would that money be better spent

[30:04] somewhere else in an in an area or with a product that has a better chance at success or maybe one that's already successful and and that and and what the company can build upon that success rather than continuing to invest on a sunk cost fallacy basis in something that's not going to work out. And so, one of the So, some some practices that companies should consider

[30:32] >> [snorts]

[30:32] >> are some predefined performance thresholds, right? So, before the launch, what are the metric What are going to be the metrics that that that designate or that demonstrate, I should say, that demonstrate success or at least that the initiative should be continued, right? So, setting a a standard beforehand creates a more objective basis than setting something once the initiative has already been made and now it it the the

[31:08] objectives may be influenced by the emotions, the egos of of leadership, okay? And then conduct periodic uh uh product viability reviews. So, once once you've established the performance thresholds, you can be more objective in determining is in in fact are those objectives being met? And if they're falling short, well, realistically, what how much more effort, how much more

[31:43] time, how much more investment will be needed to reach those objectives? And then what could be done with those those that that time and those resources that may actually be better for the company? So, uh once, you know, with those two, then a proper decision can be made as to whether shutting down an initiative that fails to meet those objectives, those milestones, makes the most sense. So, um in in in some cases, strategic

[32:21] withdrawal is going to protect the the company's capacity to to innovate and and and, you know, maybe even stay viable. So, I have a a one example I want to share with you. If you remember something called Google Glass. So, it was this sort of futuristic wearable that was meant to replace smartphones. It was launched a little over 10 years ago in 2013. And uh it it was really a debacle for Alphabet

[32:57] from the start. First of all, there were privacy concerns about them. It was unclear what really was the use case for everyday consumers. And it had a it had a high price, $1,500 or thereabouts. And and nonetheless, even in the face of these problems, Google kept promoting it to consumers um despite the mounting backlash that was coming over the privacy concerns and the cost, etc. And um and finally, they gave it up in 2015,

[33:35] right? They would have been much better off if they had pivoted more quickly and and and what they eventually did was they turned it into kind of an enterprise product rather than a consumer product. Um but but it was a decision that should have been made much more quickly, in months rather than years. Um but but in the event, eventually Google did make the right decision and of course, Alphabet continues to be one of the, you know, most valuable companies in the world, right? Uh so,

[34:13] um you know, in in Google's case, it didn't it didn't put them out of business, um but if you take a case like Quibi, which was uh a fairly very highly touted media company that was going to make all kinds of sort of ultra-short content, um and and it was launched with a big splash. There were very prominent people involved. And it was it was basically a failure from the start. Uh and, you know, in the case of Quibi, um it it essentially,

[34:49] you know, the the company essentially failed. Uh now, they did react pretty quickly to what was obviously a losing proposition, but by then, the capital had been burnt through and and and and that was, you know, in and they weren't able to pivot because it was such a colossally uh a colossal failure of of reading of the market, etc. Okay? So, um in in in the case of both of those companies, strategic withdrawal would have uh potentially uh protected

[35:24] innovation capacity and in the in the second case with Quibi, might have allowed the company to continue to exist. Okay. Next, um so, when one has a product product or a or a service and it may have been a something that the companies had for the long term, nevertheless, they may need to leave a market or abandon a product if it no longer fits the strategy of the company. So, um this is happening with um um

[36:03] shoot, I'm going up on the name of the company. Uh they're a a healthcare and food company, one of the largest in the world, and they're selling their food business because the new CEO uh has decided that he's that the company needs to focus on personal care products and get out of the food business. And so, again, it's it's it's selling off um that that that aspect of of the company because it no longer fits the

[36:39] long-term strategy of the company. We saw a similar thing with uh with the Kellogg company where they spun off uh I believe they called it Canova, which was the part of the company that was slower growing. It was it was kind of legacy products that they that Kellogg didn't think really had a future, right? And so, they're they're leaving they're leaving those products behind in essence. Um they're leaving that that segment of the market behind. So, um market conditions change. Sometimes

[37:15] they change rapidly, sometimes they evolve at a you know, at a much slower pace. So, um once So, what was once a profitable segment, um it may become oversaturated, it may become overregulated, it may become structurally unprofitable. So, for for all of these reasons, it may make sense to abandon or retreat from that particular market or product segment in order to maintain the long-term viability of the company

[37:51] at like the examples I gave. So, how does one do that? Well, this is what companies do. First of all, they evaluate long-term margin potential of a company and they identify those divisions or subsidiaries of the company that are holding back that long-term margin potential, right? And then that that they make they make decisions about strategic divestments. That's what a divest a strategic divestment is. It's essentially a retreat. Now, we you know,

[38:29] the term strategic divestment is a good term because we don't typically look at that as a defeat. We look at it as, well, the company is making decisions based on its long-term viability and so the these are good. Now, by the way, sometimes companies will acquire a company and they'll they'll try and sort of mesh it into the larger organization. It doesn't work and so then they divest of it pretty quickly. So, in that case, you might say that there was an aspect of a defeat there, um but it was a it was a

[39:04] strategic miscalculation and rather than doubling down, it is better to divest. Okay? Now, next, there could be uh regulatory or cost shifts that that um make a particular business area uh no longer viable or at least holding back the long-term health and strength of a company. Okay? And then companies need to regularly look at if if we're not in this particular area or pursuing this particular product line or initiative,

[39:41] to where could that capital be reallocated that will make the business stronger over the longer term, right? So, strong the strongest companies are constantly looking to reposition themselves in the marketplace to maintain to maintain the the the the best position. Okay. Next, companies need to preserve organizational strength. So, holding a losing position, it drains

[40:17] talent, it drains cash, and it drains leadership attention, right? So, rather than stick with a losing initiative, a company that is doing these, you know, with that that's constantly evaluating and potentially repositioning, will look at and say, "Okay, wait a minute. Where can we redeploy team members, our our our leadership, our rank and file people, into higher impact projects, higher impact initiatives, right? That's that's

[40:53] a crucial question, especially given that labor is such a large percentage of the cost for operating a company." Next, by by um by considering reallocation of resources, it it allows um um the the protection of financial reserves, right? So, I was talking with a friend of mine last night, and he was telling me about a problem at the company at which he works,

[41:28] and the CEO's solution

[41:32] >> [laughter] [snorts]

[41:34] >> uh was to hire a consultant. And I said, "Well, from from what you described, this consultant is not going to solve the problem because the consultant specializes in a problem that you don't have, right? And the reality is that the the CEO of this company tends to do this fairly repeatedly. He he saps the company's uh resources um rather than preserving its organizational strength by doing things like

[42:09] throwing money at initiatives that aren't going to solve problems, right? And so, smart leadership looks to protect financial resources rather than uh you know, continue down a road um typically ego-based or perception misperception-based that will diminish those resources. And and finally, uh preserving organizational strength means preventing the erosion of morale. So, if people are working hard on an

[42:46] initiative, but there's a sense that it's not going to succeed, that can have a deleterious effect on not just people's enthusiasm for that particular property, but for the company for the entire company because it appears that leadership does not really understand what's going on, right? So, strategic retreat preserves the ability to compete elsewhere, to preserves the resources that are

[43:21] necessary to to compete elsewhere. Okay. Another time when it makes sense to perform a strategic withdrawal is to reset strategy. So, it may be that a particular initiative it could work, but the current strategy is just not going to carry the day. And so, it may be better rather than to continue investing in that strategy to back off, reformulate strategy, and then reengage,

[43:58] right? This is just like what I was talking about when in a in a military in a in a military sense that sometimes in the face of an enemy that may overwhelm a unit, it's better for that unit to withdraw, regroup, refit, re- rearm, and then under fresh circumstances with a new plan of attack, counterattack against the enemy. We can do the same thing in the business world. So,

[44:33] by strategic but by by doing a planned withdrawal from an initiative, first of all, we can analyze why was our why would why was that that strategy not working? Why why did it fail? Okay? And then then once we've established that, look at the new market conditions or maybe take a clearer look at the existing market conditions, which perhaps were were misanalyzed leading to the wrong strategy for pursuing a particular initiative.

[45:09] And then truly competitive approach can be redesigned, and that can be used to reengage on the initiative. So, oftentimes a successful strategy will emerge if leaders are willing to take a step back, rethink their assumptions, reexamine the marketplace, and come up with again a a better strategy. Okay? So, uh the use of withdrawal can reset

[45:44] strategy and and turn what otherwise might have been a losing proposition into a into one that is successful. Okay. Finally, uh retreat can set up a future counterattack. So, this is kind of the end result of of of the last one where we talked about withdrawal as as a reset to strategy. So, once that that resetting process has been worked through, now a counterattack can be lost

[46:19] can be launched. Sorry, not lost. Okay? So, when when when businesses do that, so they they can exit a market temporarily. Maybe the market is very very competitive, and competitors have decided to compete on price, and they keep dropping price and dropping price and dropping price. Well, there's going to come a point where the price drops so much that that these competitors may damage their businesses, and they they may

[46:55] create a situation that's not viable. So, it may be better to withdraw from a market while competitors sort of beat each other over the head to the point where now they're overextended or they've burned through resources and don't have the staying power, and then come back into the market against weaker competitors, and and now there's a greater chance for success. Okay? Um another another

[47:31] aspect of setting up a future counterattack is to rebuild the technology or the infrastructure that that will support that counterattack. So, having in the previous idea reanalyzed and reset strategy, okay, next is making sure, okay, have we laid the groundwork in terms of infrastructure and technology so that this this uh revised strategy, this renewed counterattack, has a greater chance of success, right? So, it's important to

[48:08] to do the remedial work that needs to be done before relaunching. And then finally, that hopefully will by by letting competitors sort of beat each other up while while you're restrategizing and and rebuilding your launch platform, right? So, then hopefully you're reengaging from a superior position, increasing the likelihood that you'll be successful. So, oftentimes the market rewards

[48:43] patience and preparation, right? And and and in indeed what you do is is you allow yourself to be able to fight a longer battle by being more patient before engaging. So, so strategic retreat in the final analysis requires disciplined leadership, okay? So, leaders have to they have to admit that a strategy is not working.

[49:18] They have to resist internal and external pressure to persist, and they need to communicate the decision clearly to team members, and making and and articulate that we we are withdrawing or we're we're retreating, but this is this is not a permanent defeat. This may be a temporary setback, or it may be an opportunity to regroup in preparation for a counterattack. All of that needs to be sought thought through, and then

[49:56] lead leadership needs to explain that certainly to team members in the company, but perhaps to customers and clients as well prior to re-engaging, right? And so uh um In in strategy, especially in in a business, survival is victory. Okay? And so it it may mean short-term retreat, or it may mean permanent retreat from a particular product

[50:31] category, service category, or market, right? But the the long-term viability of the business is often times at stake. And so if the business survives, then it's been victorious. So um organizations that refused to retreat, often times they exhaust themselves in a in fighting battles that they were never going to win, right? And so it becomes an absolutely self-defeating prospect to continue to move to try and

[51:07] move forward when it's just not going to work out. So leaders who endure are the ones who recognize when to disengage, when to reposition, and when and how to prepare for the next opportunity. So smart commanders don't fight every battle. Even as aggressive a commander as General Patton knew, I don't have to fight every battle. They fight the battles that matter, and they leave behind the ones that don't. And that's how they achieve victory. And we can do

[51:43] the same thing in our businesses. So you know, before I wrap up, I will say that I've I've had conversations of this um a number of times in the last few weeks, especially with one of my close business associates, my friend Bill. And we've both acknowledged that that um engaging in the analysis uh of of a particular situation in which we find ourselves,

[52:17] >> [snorts]

[52:17] >> and in some cases retreating is a much better plan for our businesses than continuing to just butt our heads up against a wall trying to pursue losing initiatives. So I know I've made some strategic shifts in my business in this regard, and so is my friend Bill. And much to the you know, much in in support of the long-term success, the long-term survival of our particular of our of our individual businesses. So I

[52:52] encourage you to engage in this process uh because in the end, you are almost for sure going to result with a much stronger business having having gone through it. So I thank you very much for joining me. If you have questions, comments, criticisms, links to social media are in the show notes on on all the platforms where you can find my shows, YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcast. I invite them. Uh let's see. Tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time is my show People Making

[53:29] Money. And then every other Thursday is my show Drinkers as Place, 5:00 p.m. Pacific time. We have a cocktail and a schmooze and relax as we head into the end of the week. And uh so and then on Mondays at 10:00 a.m. is Pacific time is my show Trust and Estates Weekly. And then of course, Business Lessons from the Military every Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time. So again, thank you so much for joining me. Appreciate it as always. Looking forward to seeing you again, and signing off as I always do.

[54:04] Marie Darling, you are my bell. Courage at all times, my friends.