I've just watched the debate between the US presidential candidates and, frankly, I'm surprised. Instead of answering questions directly, they spent their time attacking each other.

Is this the right strategy?

Historically, figures like Napoleon, Hitler, Trump and other autocrats have adopted a systematic attack to dominate the situation and keep their opponents on the defensive. Their strategy is based on the idea that initiative and aggression can control the pace, preventing others from striking back effectively. 

For those looking for quick results, this method seems to work. But at what cost? It divides communities deeply, stirs up hatred and violence, and in the medium term costs energy, resources and human lives.

Personally, conflict situations make me uncomfortable. I prefer an approach inspired by Sun Tzu, the famous Chinese general who wrote ‘The Art of War’ over 2,500 years ago. Sun Tzu advocates remaining calm in the face of attacks and waiting to strike back subtly, on ground where you have the advantage.

For my part, I always choose the terrain of love and reason. However, this strategy requires patience. I admit that I sometimes wait a long time before achieving my goals. Very often I'm criticised for being ‘too nice’ or for taking it all on myself to ease tensions and restore harmony. This approach requires a great deal of self-awareness, as it implies remaining aligned with my values and reacting calmly, even in the face of provocation. But as soon as I let impatience, anger or a feeling of injustice get the better of me, I lose my power and am perceived as weak.

So what about you? Do you prefer frontal attack and domination, or calm, patience and respect for your values?