On Strategy

On Strategy. (And Tactics. And Operations)

When I started this blog, I decided to call it “On Strategy,” stealing the title of an excellent book by Colonel Harry Summers Jr., analyzing America’s failings in Vietnam.  I’m doing some studies right now on the Operational level of warfare and I thought I’d talk a bit about the different terms.

Another reason I felt like talking about the subject is that I recently read an article by Don E. Schultz, “Down With Best Practices,” where he argues quite convincingly that everyone in marketing is saying “strategy” when they’re really talking about “tactics.”

We use the terms “Strategy,” “Operations,” and “Tactics” in the business world, and while most people understand the difference between terms, you’ll sometimes find them used indiscriminately.

Strategy: The terms strategy and tactics date from the 19^th Century, when authors like Clausewitz and Jomini wrote on Napoleon.  Strategy is the “big picture” stuff.  In the military it is policy at the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff level.  It is a statement of how the chief executive interprets the Constitution—and how he intends to fulfill his responsibilities.  The United States has three major documents that chart our strategy:  The National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the National Military Strategy.

In business, this corresponds to guidance from the CEO and the rest of the C-suite on how the company will fulfill its mission statement.  Broad and general, strategy is much more of an art than a science.

Tactics: At the other end of the spectrum is tactics.  Tactics are the techniques applied to win individual engagements and battles.  Tactics is marching at night to get in position to attack an exposed enemy flank.  In business, tactics are using direct mail, buying a television ad, or figuring out a way to program software so that it is faster, more user-friendly, and more reliable.  Tactics leans more towards a science than an art.

Operational*: Prior to the second half of the 19^th Century strategy and tactics were enough to describe martial activities, but with developments like the railroad, the automobile, and the machinegun (to say nothing of the telegraph and later the radio), the complexity and scope of warfighting increased significantly.

Bruce W. Menning, in a 1997 article, “Operational Art’s Origins,” credits the Soviets with realizing the need for an operational level of warfare and developing the concept.  With the sheer size of the Soviet Union, Soviet leaders realized a need for something to bridge the gap between strategy and tactics.  Strategy is not interested in the movement of troops and supplies, but if you fail to manage operations effectively you won’t have people in the right place with the right equipment to execute tactics.  And while tactics is only concerned with successfully taking the hill in front of you, if the capture of said hill isn’t part of a broader plan the most brilliant tactics will literally win you the battle while losing the war.

At the operational level the US military is broken down into a number of geographical areas of responsibility as well as functional areas.  For example the Commander in Chief of Pacific Command is responsible for all military activity in the Pacific region.

If we were to apply the military definition of Operational to business, it would be roughly the equivalent of a regional manager for a large national or multinational corporation, coordinating the activities of individual plants or offices and serving as a liaison between corporate and the branches.  Operations tend towards being an art—with a healthy amount of science thrown in.

What’s in a Name?: The bottom line?  What’s the big deal if I use the terms “tactics” and “strategy” interchangeably?  Why shouldn’t I call allocating four hours a week to Twitter by an intern in the PR department a “Social Networking Strategy”?  It’s no big deal.  Call it whatever you want, but there are two reasons to be wary of using the terms interchangeably:  1) If you ever do it in a discussion with someone who does differentiate between strategy and tactics you will hurt your credibility with that person and 2) the concepts (and Operational) are sufficiently different that if you apply the terms in line with their intent you create a framework that gives your plans, policies, and execution a greater depth and clarity than if you don’t make the distinction.

*The US military didn’t add the operational level of warfare to its doctrine until the early 1980s and while the name makes for some confusion with regards to conducting an operation versus Operational planning, that is the name that stuck.

Tags: art, definitions, operational, operations, organization, planning, science, strategic, strategy, tactical, tactics