THE ancient military strategist, Sun Tzu was once subjected to an unconventional interview. King Ho Lu of Wu, while intrigued having read the thirteen chapters of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”, was sceptical of his theory.
King Ho Lu asked Sun Tzu if his renowned theory could be subjected to a "slight test". When Sun Tzu agreed, the King proposed a challenge (perhaps intended to mock him): "May the test be applied to women?"
Upon Sun Tzu’s affirmative response, 180 ladies (concubines) were brought out of the palace. Sun Tzu divided the women into two companies, deliberately placing one of the King's favourite concubines at the head of each of the 90.
He instructed them to take up spears and addressed his new recruits, establishing the baseline of their knowledge: "I presume you know the difference between front and back, right hand and left hand?".
When the women replied that they did, Sun Tzu meticulously explained the parameters of their training with corresponding drum beats, clearly defining what each command: "Left turn," "Right turn," "About turn”.
The words of command having been explicitly communicated, the drums sounded and Sun Tzu gave his first order.
The girls merely burst out laughing perhaps treating it as palace humour. It is in this precise moment that Sun Tzu laid down one of the most profound principles of leadership and human resources ever recorded.
He did not lose his temper nor did he immediately penalise the “workforce”. Instead, he took personal responsibility, stating: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame".
Assuming his own onboarding process and communication were flawed, he patiently drilled them again taking time meticulously explaining his instructions.
One again he issued the command, yet the girls again burst into fits of laughter. Having fulfilled his managerial duty to provide clear instructions and training, this time Sun Tzu shifted the accountability entirely.
He declared: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame.
But if his orders are CLEAR and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers". To establish absolute discipline, he immediately ordered the two lead concubines to be beheaded.
Watching from a raised pavilion, the King was horrified at the prospect of losing his favourites and sent his messengers in a desperate attempt to halt the execution, claiming his "meat and drink will lose their savour" if they were killed.
Sun Tzu’s response was simply cold: "Having once received His Majesty's commission to be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept".
The executions were carried out, he placed a pair of new concubines in front as leaders and when the drill resumed, the terrified women executed every manoeuvre with "perfect accuracy and precision not venturing to utter a sound".
Sun Tzu then sent a messenger to the King, saying: "Your soldiers, Sire, are now properly drilled and disciplined, and ready for Your Majesty’s inspection.
They can be put to any use their King may desire". The King was, however was too horrified to come down from the pavilion to do so.
Decoding the Metaphor
In this metaphor, the King represents the Board of Directors or the Chief Executive Officer. Sun Tzu embodies the modern Human Resources practitioner.
The favourite concubines at the front represent entitled middle management, often protected by executive favoritisms, whilst the 180 palace ladies represent an unruly, untrained workforce.
Navigating the modern industrial relations landscape requires exactly the kind of strategic foresight, discipline, and empathy demonstrated in this ancient assessment.
The core lesson revolves around distinguishing between two entirely different corporate challenges: managing a lack of capability (poor performance) and managing misconduct.
Recognising the difference between the two and applying the correct procedural response is the hallmark of effective management.
Clarity in Managing Poor Performance
Sun Tzu’s immediate reaction to the laughing women is the cornerstone of modern performance management: "If words of command are not clear and distinct... then the general is to blame".
In modern employment law, poor performance is defined as a consistent inability to achieve reasonable performance standards. It typically stems from a lack of skill, aptitude, or experience, and crucially, it is usually not intentional.
Indicators of poor performance include substandard output, failure to adhere to agreed-upon metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), deficient work product, insufficient output volume, and the mismanagement of resources.
A fundamental error managers make is confusing poor performance with misconduct. Misconduct implies a wilful or deliberate violation of rules, whereas poor performance is a failure of capability.
Because poor performance is not deliberate, an employer cannot simply dismiss an underperforming employee summarily (see “Managing poor performance at work: Support or exit ploy?” The Daily Express, 24th November 2025 at
https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read/6387/managing-poor-performance-at-work-support-or-exit-ploy-/).
The burden of proof rests entirely on the employer to show that the performance issues were real and that a fair procedure was followed to address them. The Industrial Court relies heavily on a "tripartite test" to justify a dismissal for poor performance.
The employer must establish that:
- The employee was unequivocally warned about their poor performance.
- The employee was accorded sufficient opportunity, resources, and guidance to improve.
- Notwithstanding the above, the employee persistently failed to sufficiently improve their performance.
Just as Sun Tzu took the blame for the first round of laughter, modern HR and line managers must first look in the mirror.
When an employer attempts to terminate an employee for poor performance, the first line of legal inquiry will mirror Sun Tzu’s exact reasoning: Did the employer provide clear instructions? Were the targets or KPIS unambiguously communicated? Was adequate training provided? You cannot penalise a worker for failing to meet a standard that was never clearly defined. The burden of clarity lies fundamentally with management.
While Sun Tzu took the blame for the first round of laughter from the rank and file, he held the favourite concubines at the front of the two companies to a significantly higher standard of accountability, eventually leading to their execution.
This mirrors Industrial Law, where superiors are held to more stringent standards. In Robert John Reeves v. Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia & Anor [2000] 1 CLJ 180, the High Court established that a senior management employee is fully expected to know the required standard of job performance and cannot plead ignorance.
Citing the UK case James v. Waltham Holy Cross UDC [1972] ICR 398, the judgment noted that those in senior management are:
"...fully aware of what is required of them and fully capable of judging for themselves whether they are achieving that requirement."
Consequently, the need for a warning and an opportunity for improvement is much less apparent for senior roles.
This perfectly encapsulates Sun Tzu’s logic: he afforded the general ranks patient retraining but held the senior "officers" to absolute, immediate accountability.
Just as a general must provide clear instructions, a senior leader is expected to be the embodiment of those instructions.
When Laughter Becomes Insubordination – Managing Misconduct
Once Sun Tzu had repeated his instructions and ensured they were thoroughly understood, the subsequent laughter was no longer a failure of training or capability; it was wilful insubordination.
He correctly identified that the fault no longer lay with the general, nor the rank-and-file soldiers, but with the officers: the favourite concubines, who were setting a toxic, frivolous tone. "But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers".
This transition perfectly illustrates the shift from managing poor performance to managing misconduct. Misconduct covers a wide spectrum of deliberate organisational violations, ranging from absenteeism to sexual harassment, criminal breach of trust (CBT) and insubordination.
The palace ladies laughed because their direct line managers treated the corporate directive as a joke. In any organisation, the workforce takes its behavioural cues from middle management; if a department head openly flouts directives, the entire department becomes unmanageable.
In Chang Lee Ming v. Novel Link Malaysia Sdn Bhd 2 ILR 436, the Industrial Court held that insubordination includes an employee manifestly displaying vocal disagreement as an act of disrespect, which can involve direct questioning or explicitly mocking management decisions.
In the eyes of industrial jurisprudence, insubordination and misconduct are viewed as severe breaches that strike at the root of the employer-employee relationship, destroying the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Sun Tzu’s swift execution of the concubines is the ancient, extreme equivalent of a summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
While modern HR professionals utilise show-cause letters or Domestic Inquiries rather than executioners sword, the core principle remains identical: a manager who actively encourages disobedience or refuses to enforce commands must be removed.
By targeting the favourite concubines at the front rather than penalising the 180 ladies, Sun Tzu demonstrated targeted, root-cause disciplinary action, excising the cancer of bad leadership rather than punishing the followers.
However, modern employers must be cautioned by the Doctrine of Proportionality of Punishment. Not every infraction warrants the corporate equivalent of 'beheading'.
Establishing misconduct does not automatically justify dismissal.
The punishment must fit the offence, taking into consideration the severity of the conduct, the employee's past record and other mitigating factors (see “Punishing employment misconduct”, The Daily Express, 27th October 2025
https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read/6346/punishing-employment-misconduct/).
Slaying the King’s Favourites, Eliminating Favouritism
Perhaps the most dramatic and legally relevant moment in Sun Tzu's audience is his defiance of the King. The King attempted to protect his favourite concubines, arguing that their execution would cause his "meat and drink to lose their savour”.
Sun Tzu adamantly refused to yield, establishing that organisational rules must transcend executive favouritism: "Having once received His Majesty's commission... there are certain commands of His Majesty which... I am unable to accept".
HR practitioners might encounter the equivalent of the King's "meat and drink". This is the untouchable employee. It might be a toxic sales director who brings in the highest revenue, a brilliant but abusive lead developer or a middle manager who happens to be a personal friend of the CEO.
When this individual commits gross misconduct or persistently underperforms, executive leadership often steps in, asking HR to look the other way, arguing that losing this individual will damage the business.
Yielding to this pressure is fatal in industrial harmony. To maintain a stable, legally compliant workforce, an organisation must enforce transparent, consistently applied policies regardless of office politics.
If an employer applies policies selectively, dismissing a junior executive for insubordination while merely giving a slap on the wrist to the CEO's favourite for the exact same offence, it violates the principles of equity and good conscience.
Sun Tzu’s willingness to execute the King’s favourites demonstrates the ultimate standard of corporate governance: policies must apply equally to everyone. Furthermore, it highlights the absolute necessity of HR autonomy.
An effective HR leader must possess the courage to push back against the Board of Directors when a directive violates legal compliance, ethical standards, or operational integrity.
Cultural Realignment
The climax of Sun Tzu's story is found in the aftermath of his strict disciplinary action. New leaders were installed, and when the drill resumed, the previously unruly women executed every manoeuvre with "perfect accuracy and precision, not venturing to utter a sound".
Many modern leaders harbour a deep-seated fear that taking strong disciplinary action especially against prominent, high-status middle managers.
This will demoralise the workforce or spark resignations. Sun Tzu proves the exact opposite. When a company roots out toxic, favoured managers, the rest of the workforce naturally aligns.
The 180 palace concubines did not mutiny; they performed brilliantly. Why? Because ambiguity had been entirely removed.
The workforce now understood that the rules were real, that accountability was absolute and that not even proximity to the King could protect a bad manager.
This creates a profound sense of psychological safety and operational excellence.
Employees inherently thrive in environments where boundaries are clear, expectations are transparent and meritocracy wholly supersedes favouritism.
Conclusion
The narrative of Sun Tzu and the palace concubines is far more than an ancient martial anecdote; it is a foundational text on the mechanics of human resources, accountability and industrial relations.
Leaders must provide unambiguously clear instructions and objectives. They must take the blame and offer genuine support when their onboarding, communication, or training processes fail.
When dealing with a poor performance, they must exhaust all avenues of coaching and structured improvement, acting always in good faith.
However, once clarity is established, they must hold their personnel absolutely accountable for their conduct. When dealing with deliberate misconduct, the response must be decisive, adhering strictly to due process and the principles of natural justice.
Most importantly, HR professionals and line managers must possess the courage of Sun Tzu.
They must be willing to look executive leadership in the eye and reject commands or cultures of favouritism that compromise the integrity of the organisation.
True organisational excellence is never achieved by protecting favourites or turning a blind eye to underperformance; it is achieved through absolute clarity, unwavering consistency, and the courage to execute the rules with perfect accuracy.
