Chapter 25 – Directing – Choosing the Company You Keep

Directing –

Choosing the Company You Keep

Strategic Division in Times of Crisis

How would a senior executive respond if their organization faced an existential threat? Would they consolidate resources and hold their ground? Surrender to minimize casualties? Or perhaps strategically divide the organization, sacrificing weaker units to ensure at least partial survival?

This strategy of dividing assets to mitigate risk has precedents throughout history – from military commanders splitting forces to gain tactical advantage, to surgeons removing compromised tissue to save a patient, to corporate restructuring that divests underperforming divisions to protect the core business. While never guaranteeing success, strategic division can provide a viable approach when facing overwhelming threats.

The Bible offers a compelling case study of this approach in Jacob’s encounter with his estranged brother Esau. After decades of separation following Jacob’s deception to obtain his brother’s birthright, Jacob faces the prospect of meeting Esau, who approaches with four hundred men. Jacob’s response – dividing his family and possessions into strategic groupings – provides important insights into crisis management, contingency planning, and the implementation challenges of directing strategic division.

The Challenge: Facing a Potential Threat

Jacob’s situation represents a classic crisis scenario:

“The messengers returned to Ya’akov saying, ‘We went to your brother ‘Esav, and he is coming to meet you; with him are four hundred men.’ Ya’akov became greatly afraid and distressed.” (Genesis 32:6-7)

Jacob faced multiple overlapping challenges:

• Incomplete intelligence – His messengers reported Esau’s approach but provided limited context about intentions
• Power imbalance – Four hundred men represented significant force compared to Jacob’s household
• Historical conflict – Previous deception created legitimate reason for potential hostility
• Family protection – Responsibility for multiple wives, children, and extensive property

These circumstances forced Jacob into crisis decision-making with inadequate information – a situation familiar to executives who must often direct organizational responses despite uncertainty.

The Strategic Response: Dividing to Survive

Jacob’s initial strategic response focused on dividing his assets:

“He divided the people, flocks, cattle and camels with him into two camps, saying, ‘If ‘Esav comes to the one camp and attacks it, at least the camp that is left will escape.'” (Genesis 32:7-8)

This approach demonstrates several key directing principles:

1. Risk Mitigation Through Division

By creating two separate camps, Jacob established a contingency that prevented total loss even in a worst-case scenario. This exemplifies the principle that dividing resources can reduce catastrophic risk, even if it increases the likelihood of partial loss.

Thus, organizations facing existential threats should consider whether maintaining a unified approach exposes them to complete failure, or whether strategic division creates survival paths for at least part of the enterprise.

2. Layered Defense Strategy

Jacob’s approach comprised multiple defensive layers beyond the initial division:

• Diplomatic outreach – Sending messengers ahead to establish contact
• Gift strategy – Sending substantial presents in waves to appease Esau
• Physical positioning – Arranging his family in strategic order
• Personal diplomacy – Leading from the front with symbolic submission (bowing seven times)

This multi-faceted approach demonstrates how effective directing coordinates multiple tactics within an overall strategic framework.

Crisis response should layer multiple approaches rather than relying on a single strategy, creating redundancy that increases the probability of success.

3. Symbolic Communication Through Arrangement

Jacob arranged his family in a specific order when meeting Esau:

“Ya’akov divided the children between Le’ah, Rachel and the two slave-girls, putting the slave-girls and their children first, Le’ah and her children second, and Rachel and Yosef last.” (Genesis 33:1-2)

This arrangement communicated priorities while creating a graduated exposure to potential threat. The text doesn’t indicate this was designed specifically for escape (as in the two-camp approach), but rather appears focused on protecting those most valued by placing them furthest from initial contact.

How resources are arranged during crisis communicates priorities. Leaders should be intentional about such arrangements, recognizing that positioning decisions send powerful messages to both external parties and internal stakeholders.

The Implementation Gap: Planning vs. Execution

The narrative reveals an intriguing directing challenge – the apparent gap between Jacob’s stated plan and its implementation. While Genesis 32:7-8 describes dividing into two camps, the actual encounter in Genesis 33 doesn’t mention this two-camp structure. Instead, it describes a single procession with Jacob at the front, followed by his family arranged by mothers.

This discrepancy highlights a critical directing principle: the implementation gap between planning and execution. Several possible explanations exist:

1. Plan revision – Jacob may have developed the two-camp approach but revised it as circumstances evolved
2. Partial implementation – The division may have occurred but wasn’t relevant to the narrative of the actual encounter
3. Contingent implementation – The two-camp structure may have been a fallback position if initial contact went poorly

Directing requires monitoring the gap between planned strategies and actual implementation. Leaders should:

• Track execution against plans
• Document and communicate plan modifications
• Ensure stakeholders understand when and why strategies evolve
• Learn from discrepancies between planned and actual approaches

The Preparation Strategy: Gifts Before Confrontation

Jacob implemented a sophisticated approach to the anticipated meeting:

“He sent 200 she-goats and 20 he-goats, 200 ewes and 20 rams, 30 nursing camels with their colts, 40 cows and ten bulls; and twenty she-donkeys and ten he-donkeys.” (Genesis 32:15)

This substantial gift – 550 animals sent in waves throughout the night – represented a significant investment in relationship repair. Jacob instructed each servant to identify the animals as gifts from “your servant Jacob” to “my lord Esau,” using language that elevated Esau while diminishing himself.

When directing conflict resolution, consider:

• Making substantial good-faith investments before direct engagement
• Using waves of positive interaction rather than a single gesture
• Employing language that honors the other party
• Demonstrating commitment through meaningful sacrifice

The Personal Encounter: Leading from the Front

Despite his fear, Jacob placed himself in front of his family when meeting Esau:

“Then he himself passed on ahead of them and prostrated himself on the ground seven times before approaching his brother.” (Genesis 33:3)

This positioning demonstrated several leadership principles:

• Willingness to face the greatest risk personally
• Taking responsibility rather than delegating difficult confrontations
• Using symbolic gestures (bowing seven times) to communicate respect
• Placing himself as a buffer between potential threat and his family

Crisis directing requires visible leadership. When organizations face threats, leaders should:

• Be visibly engaged rather than managing from a distance
• Demonstrate willingness to face difficulties directly
• Use appropriate symbolic gestures that communicate intention
• Position themselves to absorb initial impact rather than exposing others

The Unexpected Outcome: Reconciliation Over Conflict

The encounter produced an unexpected result:

“‘Esav ran to meet him, hugged him, threw his arms around his neck and kissed him; and they wept.” (Genesis 33:4)

This outcome revealed a critical directing principle: plans should accommodate positive as well as negative scenarios. Jacob appears to have been unprepared for reconciliation, as evidenced by his continued wariness and eventual decision to separate from Esau despite offers to travel together.

When Esau refused Jacob’s gifts saying, “I have plenty” (Genesis 33:9), Jacob insisted he accept them, noting “I have everything” (Genesis 33:11). This competitive language suggests Jacob remained in his prior mindset despite the changed reality.

Effective directing requires planning for multiple outcomes, including unexpectedly positive scenarios. Leaders should:

• Develop response plans for different outcome scenarios, including success
• Remain flexible when reality differs from expectations
• Avoid allowing past conflicts to prevent recognizing new opportunities
• Be prepared to pivot from defensive to collaborative approaches when circumstances permit

The Residual Caution: Incomplete Reconciliation

Despite the emotional reunion, Jacob declined Esau’s offer to travel together:

“[Jacob said] ‘My lord knows that the children are small, and the sheep and cattle nursing their young concern me; if they overdrive them even one day, all the flocks will die.'” (Genesis 33:13)

This excuse reflects the challenge of rebuilding trust after significant conflict. Despite evidence of Esau’s goodwill, Jacob remained cautious – perhaps reasonably given their history, but possibly missing an opportunity for deeper reconciliation.

Directing post-conflict interactions requires balancing appropriate caution with openness to genuine reconciliation. Leaders should:

• Acknowledge the time required to rebuild damaged relationships
• Recognize when defensive postures may no longer serve organizational interests
• Balance protection of valuable assets with opportunities for collaboration
• Consider whether historical conflicts are still relevant to current realities

The Long-Term Impact: Separate Paths

The encounter ultimately ended with the brothers taking separate paths rather than reuniting their families. While the immediate crisis was resolved, the long-term separation persisted. This outcome raises questions about whether Jacob’s directing approach succeeded completely or only partially.

The brothers’ families developed along different trajectories:

• Esau’s descendants became the nation of Edom, establishing kings “before any king reigned over Israel” (Genesis 36:31)
• Jacob’s family soon encountered significant internal dysfunction, including the selling of Joseph into slavery

Crisis responses should be evaluated not only on immediate outcomes but on long-term organizational health. Leaders should consider:

• Whether crisis management approaches address root causes or merely symptoms
• How directing decisions during crisis might shape organizational culture
• Whether strategic divisions intended as temporary become permanent
• The potential unintended consequences of defensive strategies

Deliverables

• Plan comprehensively for multiple scenarios – Develop response strategies for both negative and positive outcomes rather than focusing only on worst-case scenarios.
• Layer defense strategies – Create multiple protective mechanisms rather than relying on a single approach when facing threats.
• Communicate plan changes clearly – When strategy shifts occur, ensure all stakeholders understand the changes and rationales to maintain trust and execution quality.
• Lead visibly during crisis – Position yourself at points of maximum risk rather than managing from a distance when directing crisis response.
• Invest substantially in relationship repair – Make meaningful gestures to resolve conflicts rather than token efforts, particularly when significant history exists.
• Remain flexible when reality diverges from expectations – Adapt directing approaches when circumstances evolve, especially when outcomes are more positive than anticipated.
• Evaluate both immediate and long-term impacts – Assess directing decisions on their complete organizational effects, not just their success in addressing immediate challenges.

Discussion Questions

1. If someone stole your inheritance how would you feel? What would you do?
2. How have you asked for forgiveness in the past?
3. Can you give an example of a decision you made and then changed your mind? What happened and how did you feel? How did those around you feel?
4. When has your organization divided resources or operations to mitigate risk? Was this division temporary or permanent, and what were the long-term consequences?
5. Have you experienced situations where you were unprepared for unexpectedly positive outcomes? How did this affect your ability to capitalize on the opportunity?
6. How do you balance appropriate caution with openness to reconciliation when directing interactions with formerly adversarial parties?