Rare are the authors that go so many extramiles to score a point. Not that he's wrong nor are his explanations uninteresting. But his elaborations are about anything that remotely relates to Strategy, or rather the fight for power (is this really Strategy). Read the book of you have spare Time to muse about the history of thoughts.
There are better books about strategy. After some 600 pages the author himself mentions Rumelt and quotes some Lines of "god strategy, Bad strategy". This is not so much about the history of god knows what, but it puts the topic into some structure, what is clearly missing in this text.
Unterhaltsam, hochinteressant und zugleich fundiert. Ein tiefgründiges, vielschichtiges Buch über die Aspekte der Strategie. Überaus lesenswert für alle die sich beruflich oder privat für Strategie interessieren.
Nicht nur für Unternehmensstrategen, sondern für alle, die Strategie verstehen wollen, klasse! teilweise etwas lang, aber dafür umso überraschender. Kapitel wie "Satans Strategy" mit einzubringen, das bringt nur ein Engländer und würde einem verkopften Deutschen wohl nie einfallen. Einzig ärgerlich ist die Bindung des Buches, mann kann es kaum aufklappen, dafür aber sicher notfalls auch als Ziegelstein verwenden. Sonst prima!!!
I would like to add just a little idea to the other reviews. To try to explain things may be natural to certain people and styles. It adds a form of control, as does determinism or cynisism. An explanatory style may fail or succeed in its endeavour to seem correct in its logic, in and of itself. However, even in its success, it may eventually fail. It may have been completed, but it may not arrive in reality. To give an example: Some established person may feel threatened in his or her position. The fear may be to disappear into oblivion before their time. They may not necessarily be afraid of the person with the explanatory style, but perhaps of still others and their ambition, which would take advantage of any little doubt that could be cast on them. So the established person refrains from any thinking style in order to be less prone to attack, which then marginalizes the explanatory way, even if it is correct in and of itself, to a certain extent. In light of this, I found soothing lines in this book. What I explained above is what some Greeks called the force of luck, which can contradict the plausibility of events that logical concepts might forsee. It is the conflict of general principles and individual drift and motive, such as it is very difficult to unite in an effort to really grapple with the force of actuality. Though it does not directly mention this general theme, this book in its first chapters mentions all these elements and serves to give a broad overview, which I think is a rare thing to find, a good thing to know. Also, it does so in an actually quite lucid way. To me, the book deserves attention, if only for these reasons. In these aspects I mentioned, there is a sound knowledge of the basics of strategy as I see it. An attempt at a history of a subject this broad is a courageous endeavour. To demand perfect homogeneity, as some of the other reviewers do, is perhaps taking it a step to far. Rather, the goal may be to gain and retain a sense of an ability to direction in a complex world. With its sound basis and its aspiration of a broad overview, this book may add to that and be a worthy addition to one's library.