A manager must be able to act both pastorally and surgically.

Pastoral management means helping others to learn how to learn. You already have your people, they just have to be coached, educated, showered with share options and trained, and everything will turn out OK.

Surgical management is more about pruning, picking holes, transferring, welding together, neutralizing, deciding, forcing through and all that stuff.

To be a credible surgeon, a manager must also be able to act in a pastoral manner.

Pastoral managers are only credible when they are able to act surgically too.

So I think a consultant who says he never writes reports is more credible if, when push comes to shove, he can actually do it. If it turns out he doesn't write reports because he can't write, then his strategy is a matter of avoidance rather than choice. A strategic choice is always a choice from more than one option.

Each strategic issue can, in principle, be solved surgically or pastorally.

If you have a problem, then the surgical approach is likely to be better; if it's a problematic situation, then pastoral action may be more appropriate.

Nevertheless, both approaches are possible.

There are some national states which view questions of ethnicity more as a problematic situation and prefer a pastoral approach, and some states which take a surgical approach.

Now in which category would we place Milosevic?