Strategy - v - Tactics
Discussion
I've become increasingly aware that there's widely differing opinions on the understanding of the difference between Strategy and Tactics.
I was schooled in the idea that a Strategy describes your destination whilst the Tactics describe the means by which you reach that destination. So, if you're in London and want to go to Birmingham, being in Birmingham is your strategy. The tactical choices are by car, by rail, cycle, walk, pogo stick, etc.. What makes a Strategy different from an Objective is the detail applied. So, I want to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible without the need for an overcoat. This narrows your tactical choices.
But I often see strategic plans that are - to my mind - tactical but in the absence of any coherent strategy.
Interested to see if this is a 'me' thing and gauge whether interpretation of meaning does indeed differ amongst the business community.
I was schooled in the idea that a Strategy describes your destination whilst the Tactics describe the means by which you reach that destination. So, if you're in London and want to go to Birmingham, being in Birmingham is your strategy. The tactical choices are by car, by rail, cycle, walk, pogo stick, etc.. What makes a Strategy different from an Objective is the detail applied. So, I want to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible without the need for an overcoat. This narrows your tactical choices.
But I often see strategic plans that are - to my mind - tactical but in the absence of any coherent strategy.
Interested to see if this is a 'me' thing and gauge whether interpretation of meaning does indeed differ amongst the business community.
StevieBee said:
I've become increasingly aware that there's widely differing opinions on the understanding of the difference between Strategy and Tactics.
I was schooled in the idea that a Strategy describes your destination whilst the Tactics describe the means by which you reach that destination. So, if you're in London and want to go to Birmingham, being in Birmingham is your strategy. The tactical choices are by car, by rail, cycle, walk, pogo stick, etc.. What makes a Strategy different from an Objective is the detail applied. So, I want to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible without the need for an overcoat. This narrows your tactical choices.
But I often see strategic plans that are - to my mind - tactical but in the absence of any coherent strategy.
Interested to see if this is a 'me' thing and gauge whether interpretation of meaning does indeed differ amongst the business community.
For me, an objective/aim/target/whatever is your end goal.I was schooled in the idea that a Strategy describes your destination whilst the Tactics describe the means by which you reach that destination. So, if you're in London and want to go to Birmingham, being in Birmingham is your strategy. The tactical choices are by car, by rail, cycle, walk, pogo stick, etc.. What makes a Strategy different from an Objective is the detail applied. So, I want to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible without the need for an overcoat. This narrows your tactical choices.
But I often see strategic plans that are - to my mind - tactical but in the absence of any coherent strategy.
Interested to see if this is a 'me' thing and gauge whether interpretation of meaning does indeed differ amongst the business community.
A strategy is the plan, or how you get there.
Tactics are short-term or situational necessities to pursue the strategy.
It doesn't really matter what you call the different bits - you need to know what you're trying to achieve, what your approach to achieving it is, how you get necessary resources into place, and what detailed action you'll take. I'd call those Objectives, Strategy, Operations and Tactics respectively, but the main thing is you know what they all are, that they align with each other, and that you adapt them as necessary.
Richard Rumelt's Good Strategy Bad Strategy is worth a read. He has a slightly narrower definition of strategy, which is that it's your conscious choice from the options of how you'll overcome the obstacles to achieving your objectives. He'd argue that nobody needs a strategy to get to Birmingham.
Richard Rumelt's Good Strategy Bad Strategy is worth a read. He has a slightly narrower definition of strategy, which is that it's your conscious choice from the options of how you'll overcome the obstacles to achieving your objectives. He'd argue that nobody needs a strategy to get to Birmingham.
Alexandra said:
For me, an objective/aim/target/whatever is your end goal.
A strategy is the plan, or how you get there.
Tactics are short-term or situational necessities to pursue the strategy.
Agreed. OST.A strategy is the plan, or how you get there.
Tactics are short-term or situational necessities to pursue the strategy.
Winners by Alastair Campell goes into this in a lot of detail.
A "strategy" is in no way the end goal - I'm surprised it's so widely thought of like that!
My view is similar to others, but would add a slight nuance for business:
Strategy is the overriding route to delivering an ultimate ambition or objective.
Tactics are discrete activities which together will achieve that.
In business terms, the executive team / founder will agree an ambition and be responsible for strategy, but tactics might be delivered by different people with different skillsets, perhaps independently of each other, and perhaps over different timeframes that may be consecutive or concurrent,
A nice quote from a military perspective:
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy are the noise before defeat.” — Sun Tzu
Strategy is the overriding route to delivering an ultimate ambition or objective.
Tactics are discrete activities which together will achieve that.
In business terms, the executive team / founder will agree an ambition and be responsible for strategy, but tactics might be delivered by different people with different skillsets, perhaps independently of each other, and perhaps over different timeframes that may be consecutive or concurrent,
A nice quote from a military perspective:
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy are the noise before defeat.” — Sun Tzu
StevieBee said:
I was schooled in the idea that a Strategy describes your destination whilst the Tactics describe the means by which you reach that destination. So, if you're in London and want to go to Birmingham, being in Birmingham is your strategy. The tactical choices are by car, by rail, cycle, walk, pogo stick, etc.. What makes a Strategy different from an Objective is the detail applied.
I agree. In blunt terms, for D-Day the strategy was 'invade France'; the tactics were how the heck to do it.In a similar vein, and a slight parallel, marketing and sales are often confused.
Simpo Two said:
StevieBee said:
I was schooled in the idea that a Strategy describes your destination whilst the Tactics describe the means by which you reach that destination. So, if you're in London and want to go to Birmingham, being in Birmingham is your strategy. The tactical choices are by car, by rail, cycle, walk, pogo stick, etc.. What makes a Strategy different from an Objective is the detail applied.
I agree. In blunt terms, for D-Day the strategy was 'invade France'; the tactics were how the heck to do it.In a similar vein, and a slight parallel, marketing and sales are often confused.
The problem with this focus on what's strategy and what's tactics is that it tends to end up with people forgetting they need to also understand the objective, and the operation required to be ready to implement the strategy (in the D-Day example the operation was the logistics of getting the people and their gear into the boats). It's a chain, or a tree or something, where all the links need to line up and be understood, it's much less important what you call them, or exactly what goes into each box.
StevieBee said:
I've become increasingly aware that there's widely differing opinions on the understanding of the difference between Strategy and Tactics.
I was schooled in the idea that a Strategy describes your destination whilst the Tactics describe the means by which you reach that destination. So, if you're in London and want to go to Birmingham, being in Birmingham is your strategy. The tactical choices are by car, by rail, cycle, walk, pogo stick, etc.. What makes a Strategy different from an Objective is the detail applied. So, I want to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible without the need for an overcoat. This narrows your tactical choices.
But I often see strategic plans that are - to my mind - tactical but in the absence of any coherent strategy.
Interested to see if this is a 'me' thing and gauge whether interpretation of meaning does indeed differ amongst the business community.
It's exactly as you say, strategy is what we want to achieve and tatics is how we will achieve it.I was schooled in the idea that a Strategy describes your destination whilst the Tactics describe the means by which you reach that destination. So, if you're in London and want to go to Birmingham, being in Birmingham is your strategy. The tactical choices are by car, by rail, cycle, walk, pogo stick, etc.. What makes a Strategy different from an Objective is the detail applied. So, I want to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible without the need for an overcoat. This narrows your tactical choices.
But I often see strategic plans that are - to my mind - tactical but in the absence of any coherent strategy.
Interested to see if this is a 'me' thing and gauge whether interpretation of meaning does indeed differ amongst the business community.
Simpo Two said:
E63eeeeee... said:
Liberate France was the objective
You could argue that the objective was 'win the war', and liberating France was a tactic to that end... I guess it depends what scale you view things at!Hopefully the OP has no plans to invade France other than businesswise
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff