How strategy differs from tactics example. Strategy and tactics. Strategy and tactics: what is the difference

We often use the term "strategy" in various areas of our life. But the more I interact with different people, the more I understand that they put very different meanings into it. Therefore, I decided to investigate this issue in more detail and determine the difference between these words. Naturally, this article does not claim to be the ultimate truth.

The origin of the concept of "strategy"

<…>We need a Strategy, when we understand that our picture of the world is definitely incomplete or inadequate, more or less we understand what information we lack, but we must act in spite of this lack. The strategy is the scenario of our actions in which we assume their greatest success or the least loss. And we make a decision with deliberately incomplete information: by will and intuition, we try to compensate for the lack of knowledge.
Acting, thanks to successes or failures, we refine the Picture of the World to the level when it can be considered more or less adequate. Now Tactics appears on the scene, for which, in principle, logic and experience are enough.<…>

<…>You have lost your house key and are trying to open a locked lock yourself. First, you choose a strategy: either stick a knife into the gap between the door and the jamb, or try to use a wire in the keyhole, or even remove the door from its hinges ...
When you stopped at choosing a strategy, tactics begin.<…>

Von Clausewitz says the same thing, only in different words.

<…>Strategy is the use of combat for the purposes of war; therefore, it must set the military operations as a whole with such a goal that would correspond to the meaning of the war. It draws up a plan of war and connects with the goal set for military action a number of actions that should lead to its achievement; in other words, she outlines the projects of individual campaigns and gives instructions for individual battles in them. Since most of these actions can be outlined only on the basis of assumptions that are partially not justified, and a whole series of more detailed definitions can not be made in advance at all, it obviously follows that the strategy must itself act on the theater of war, in order on the spot dispose of the particulars and make those changes in the whole that are constantly needed. Thus, it cannot tear itself away from hostilities for a minute.<…>

As a result, a strategy is a scenario of achievement, in which you know for sure that your picture of the world is incomplete, and your behavior model can change.

I will try to express Clausewitz's thought in my own words.

“Our goal is to win the war. Which of the campaigns will be successful, and which of the battles will be the control one and will lead us to victory, we cannot know. Nevertheless, we start to act based on hypotheses about the success of a particular campaign. If step by step our forecasts come true, then we continue to implement the initially developed strategy, if not, we make changes to the plan and accordingly change our behavior. "

What is tactics

A tactic is a scenario of actions in which you know exactly what the result will be when it is implemented. The more tactics you possess, the more multivariate strategies you can build.

The implementation of a specific strategy is a procedure for actions in a specific time interval - between the beginning of the implementation of the forecast and the achievement of the understanding that the forecast came true / did not come true. If the forecast came true, the tactic begins. If it is not justified, a new strategy is created based on new inputs.

Imagine a small child who is seated in the corner of a room and given toys. Having played enough, he decides to explore the vast world of his home. And after a few steps, he notices that there is candy on the table. So, appears TARGET... As soon as the target appears, the movement towards the desired candy begins. So, the child uses the first TACTICS. Just get close to the object and reach up for the candy. Namely, it is a tactic, since the child believes that his picture of the world is adequate. When he is faced with a surprise and understanding that this is not enough, his brain and research instinct begin to build ways, models, how to achieve the goal. So the child goes to search STRATEGIES.So he begins to choose between the tactics of "moving the candy with a toy stick" and the tactics of "building a pyramid from objects." He is doing one of these tactics entirely. If it doesn't work, it tries another. But, we can talk like that about a child's thinking only when there is an understanding in his brain that you can achieve a goal in different ways.

As a result, a strategy appears when we realize that we do not know which methods and methods will definitely lead us to the goal. In fact, when building a strategy, a person works with a miscalculation of probabilities and is the deployment of certain predictions of the future in our brain. Tactics is the technical execution of the necessary actions that will bring predictable results. As a result - 3 important conclusions.

Any successful strategy, over time, turns into a tactic for those who successfully implement it.
The difference between strategy and tactics is not measured by the scale of action.
What is a strategy for you can be a routine activity for another person.

What is strategic thinking

Strategic thinking is the process of constructing several scenarios for achieving a goal with the understanding that only one of them will be implemented, and the time spent on the rest will be wasted. I also first heard the essence of this definition on a video recording of Vladimir Tarasov's lecture about Henry Ford. Ford said strategic thinking is inevitably accompanied by a willingness to do wasted work. That is why I am focusing on the second part of the sentence. Let's think about the definition in more detail.

Realizing that new inputs will constantly make changes to our plans, why should we waste time thinking in vain and each time building several ways to achieve the goal, if in the end we choose only one way? Such thinking activity may seem wasteful, unnecessary, ineffective to many.

The answer is simple. The constant presence of different scenarios for achieving the goal makes you more invulnerable and more effective. Moreover, efficiency is a derivative of invulnerability. This invulnerability stems from two elements:

Actions with the knowledge that no unexpected situation can unsettle you are significantly different from actions without such awareness.
Constant exercise in building different paths to achieving a goal develops the skill to predict the future with high accuracy in detail and in detail. This means avoiding troubles in advance and looking only at the possibilities that are lightening up.

Sun Tzu in chapter IV of his treatise speaks of invulnerability as follows:

<…>In ancient times, the one who fought well, first of all made himself invincible and in this state waited until it would be possible to defeat the enemy. Invincibility is in itself, the possibility of victory lies in the enemy.<…>

<…>Therefore, the one who fights well, stands on the basis of the impossibility of his defeat and does not miss the opportunity to defeat the enemy. For this reason, the army, which must win, first wins, and then seeks battle; an army condemned to defeat first fights and then seeks victory.<…>

Sun Tzu, “The Art of War / Sun Tzu. Moscow: AST Publishing House, 2017, p. 40

The time and intellectual resources that we spend on building several ways to achieve the goal pays off with a sense of invulnerability, and subsequent effectiveness. But at the stage of reflection it is difficult to realize it.

P.S. For the development of strategic thinking, I recommend taking the course, which I have personally already tested, by Vladimir Tarasov "Personal management art". The author managed to synthesize the best world practices of stratagem thinking (Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Ford, Deming) in one place and build the learning process in an ideal form for deep assimilation of the material.

The concept of tactics is known from ancient scientific works on military affairs. The ancient Chinese treatise Thirty-Six Stratagems defined the basic principles of warfare. The strategy and tactics outlined in the treatise have been successfully used in various military operations since ancient times. Some of them, in essence their principles, have survived to this day. The flip side of strategy is tactics. This is the ability to achieve assigned goals using the priorities of the current reality.

Similarities and differences

Any achievement of a goal in the short and long term is a collection of certain actions. Strategy and tactics are the very complex of measures that help to achieve success. In a narrower sense, these terms can be explained as an idea that can help in achieving a goal or military victory.

The similarity of these two concepts is that both are aimed at the implementation of the conceived idea. The difference is determined by the scale of the action. Both the cost of decisions and their consequences are taken into account. It is said that bad tactics lead to a wasted day. A bad strategy leads to a lost year.

Action planning model

Any direction of a successful business is dictated, first of all, by strategic development objectives. The development model of a successful enterprise contains at least two levels of direction for applying efforts - global strategic objectives and tactics that ensure their implementation. The structure of the solution of the assigned tasks can be imagined as a two-story house. The abstract top floor assigns strategic objectives. The bottom floor is tactics. This division very clearly represents the interaction of strategy and tactics, prompts the choice of priority tasks for a priority solution.

Multilevel structures

In the case of multi-level structures, for example, when it comes to the interaction of various single-level units, the complex of tasks can be represented as a multi-storey building. What counts as a strategy for one level is tactics for another. Just like the fifth, for example, level is a strategy for the fourth and tactics for the sixth. It all depends on the point of view on the task.

Business and war

We must not forget that the method of solving the assigned tasks by separating priorities came to us from military affairs. Treatises on the art of killing and conquering were written long before business plans. Strategic questions were posed to the armies and commanders-in-chief, and battle tactics changed depending on certain objective factors.

A good example is the actions of the regular army in order to liberate their own country and the actions of partisan detachments. The global task is to liberate the occupied territory. This is a strategy for the war of liberation.

Army units can operate with large amounts of equipment and manpower. Combat tactics for army units consist in full-fledged opposition to the enemy army. Regular military units are capable of holding back the onslaught, conducting a counteroffensive, and losses in the scale of hostilities are acceptable.

Partisan detachments face completely different tasks. They pursue the same strategic mission, but they use completely different tactics from the army. These are, first of all, small but painful operations, sorties and sabotage, designed to inflict damage on the enemy in the occupied territory, demoralize him, make him lose his fighting spirit. The personnel of the partisan detachment and its technical resources are very limited, so head-on collisions with the enemy army will not bring any benefit. Only especially large partisan detachments can draw off enemy army units and weaken its positions on the fronts.

As this example shows, the basics of tactics in one case or another include an assessment of real possibilities. It makes no sense to use the army for pinpoint sabotage, and the partisan detachment for large-scale offensive operations. Using the available resources as directed and applying specific tactics, you can achieve much more significant success.

Tactics and business

According to statistics, only 4% of working organizations and enterprises become national leaders in a particular industry. In each of these cases, the management of the company had a clear strategic task, and the right tactics were used to solve it. This clever division of strategic and tactical priorities has ensured success, fame and access to the international market for the small enterprise.

The remaining 96% solve tactical problems without a clear strategy or setting themselves erroneous goals. For example, the goal of making a lot of money is impractical and unrealistic. After all, money is only a consequence of the achieved strategic goal. They can be won in the lottery or inherited - they have nothing to do with the strategic plan of the enterprise. But to become a sales leader in the city, to make a new product or service recognizable and famous are the right goals. Achieving them will require an analysis of all available resources.

An example of good business tactics

For example, the company has set itself the task of developing a retail chain of stores within walking distance. This is a strategic plan. The tactical solution to the task is to analyze the available resources. For example, one of the partners of the company owns a pig-breeding farm, a branch of the company is a wholesale supplier of beer. There is also a confectionery shop. The analysis of market demands suggests that bread and milk will also be in demand. For starters, small convenience stores can only sell these products, gradually expanding their range and attracting more and more customers. At this stage, the chain of stores uses the tactics of the partisan movement, only indicating its presence in the market.

Increasing sales is impossible without attracting new customers. This requires a larger assortment and reasonable prices. The backbone network can already dictate its terms to various distributors and use certain marketing techniques to achieve price reductions - for example, by large wholesale purchases. This is the tactic of a large partisan detachment. The next step of the retail chain management is to drive out competitors. This task is similar to the actions of regular army units.

Thus, the different stages of doing business are quite comparable to the stages of hostilities. Such an analogy can contribute to a clearer understanding of the tasks set in everyday life. This means that it will take less time and money to solve complex issues.

Tactics and strategy. It seems that these concepts are so far from the life of an ordinary person that there is no point in delving into their features, looking for similarities and differences.

In fact, each of us has long and consistently been both a strategist and a tactician. Remember how you decided in childhood that you must become, for example, a doctor or an engineer, and then walked long and hard towards this goal, overcoming obstacles, carefully thinking over your every step.

Tactics and strategy are closely related to each other. In fact, tactics are meaningless in the absence of a strategy, and a strategy will never be implemented without well-thought-out tactical moves. Moreover, one and the same idea can act as both a tactic and a strategy, depending on the height from which it is perceived. If tactics are viewed in relation to lower-level tactics, then in this case it should be called a strategy. The same situation is with the strategy relative to the superior strategy. It becomes a tactic. This means that tactics and strategy are not only interdependent concepts, but also interchangeable.

Scale

Both tactics and strategy are a kind of plan with which they want to achieve their goal. Only a strategy is a plan without going into implementation details. Tactics can be called strategy implementation. Each strategy includes several tactical decisions.

Time interval

Since strategic ideas are of a greater scale than tactical moves, they also take much more time to implement.

Significance

The success of the enterprise depends not only on the correctly chosen strategy, which is of course important, but also on the ways of its implementation. Even the best, potentially successful strategy will be doomed to failure if tactical steps are not thoroughly thought out or not performed well.

Conclusions site

Tactics are an integral part of the strategy, the way to achieve the goal.
Without a good strategy, tactics will not work, and vice versa.
Tactics are less time consuming than strategy.
Tactics are more detailed than strategy.

There is no fundamental difference. The only difference is in the scale of the activities carried out. The difference between strategy and tactics is best shown in the time frames with which they operate. If you are planning your day, then this is a tactic in relation to organizing the week. If you are planning the next hour or two, then this will already be a tactic in relation to the organization of the day, and the organization of the day will then become a strategy in relation to the organization of hours.

You need to understand that these concepts exist in a relationship. Tactics will be such in relation to strategy, and strategy will be in relation to tactics.

As an example, let us take the task of organizing some business, for example, it will be a business for the implementation of training services and personnel training.

It should be understood that the very idea of \u200b\u200borganizing such a business is a strategy, in this case a strategy of enrichment based on the provision of such services. Everything that will be within the framework of this business: search for clients, search for trainers, sale of trainings, development of training programs - this will already be a tactic, but it will be such in relation to the above stated strategy.

Let's say you have decided that the best way to sell your services is online advertising, or rather your site through which you want to get customers. Will this be a tactic? Yes, it is definitely a tactic for your business idea. However, this idea with the site will be at the same time a strategy, in this case a strategy for advertising and promoting your business.

At the same time, the site can be promoted in different ways. You can carry out search engine optimization, you can pay for advertising on other sites, etc. Obviously, this will already be a tactic for promoting your site.

I hope you get the idea. This is somewhat reminiscent of nested nesting dolls. The nesting dolls in which others are placed is a strategy, and those nesting dolls inside it are tactics, but they can also be a strategy in relation to the nesting dolls embedded in them.

In the light of the above, it is appropriate to introduce the concept basic strategy is the strategy on the basis of which all other strategies of some activity are built. Returning to the above considered example of organizing a training services business, it should be noted that the basic strategy will be the idea of \u200b\u200bengaging in such activities. And in many ways it is this idea that will predetermine the success or failure of a business.

Let us assume that the effectiveness of this idea at the moment for some pre-selected city is, for example, 30%, i.e. if you do everything else absolutely correctly, you will get 30 clients out of 100, to whom you will turn with your proposal. Sounds good ?! However, ideally not bad, provided that you did everything else correctly. You have correctly chosen the people to whom you should contact with your proposal, have correctly chosen the scope of your coaching services (sales, management, time management, etc.), have developed the training program correctly, sold it correctly, and conducted the training correctly. This assumes that all other strategies that are subordinate to the basic strategy are 100% effective.

In reality, this is difficult to achieve. Efficiency losses will occur at each level of your strategy system. If your sales efficiency is 10%, i.e. out of 100 clients with whom you negotiate, only 10 agree with your offer, then out of those 30 possible clients, ideally, you will receive only 3.

Why all these sad thoughts about losses? How to evaluate the effectiveness of the basic strategy? And in general, can it be assessed?

Evaluation is a complex and controversial issue that is beyond the scope of this article. The traditional answer to the question of expected demand is marketing research and expert judgment. Here knowledge of numerical values \u200b\u200bis not so important for us (it is often extremely difficult to obtain them), as it is important to understand that the viability and effectiveness of the basic strategy largely determines the success of all activities and all strategies subordinate to it. And attempts to improve some particular strategies often do not significantly change the situation, since the problem may be in the initially incorrectly chosen basic strategy.

As an illustrative example - the same trainings, only trainings for personal growth. Do you think someone needs them? Based on my experience of selling and conducting them, I can say that about 5% of people are interested in this. Whereas sales trainings are in demand by 10-30%. The values \u200b\u200bare empirical, very approximate and can vary significantly in different cases, while the qualitative difference in the demand for such services (at the same training price) is important.

You can sell personal growth trainings as well as you want, but there will be no sense in it. The price of one attracted client is too high, and the possible profit does not cover all costs.

Thus, it becomes clear that if the basic strategy is chosen incorrectly, then even a competent 100% effective implementation of tactics will not save the situation, and all activities will be doomed to failure. It's like putting a boat in the bathroom hoping that someday it will go out into the ocean. He will never get there, he is limited to the bathroom (basic strategy). If it were launched in a stream, the chances would be greater; if it were launched in a river, the chances would be even greater. In this case, the boat can be as good as you like, but this does not change anything.

To summarize... Strategy and tactics are interdependent. The choice of strategy predetermines the success or failure of the whole business. At the same time, the strategy itself cannot exist, without concrete actions (tactics) it is an abstraction divorced from life.

Talking about the fundamental difference between strategy and tactics is not entirely correct, they must be considered in subordinate relations. Tactics can also be a strategy for subordinate tactics.

Valery Chugreev, 04.04.2007

Sergey Aleksandrovich 01.11.2008 07:20

: Strange, as it seems to me, and far-fetched definitions of tactics and strategy, especially their differences between themselves, the most understandable and obvious of all the literatures, in my opinion the most correct is:

1- Tactics - i.e. a detailed action plan, fully defined using resources (it has a fully quantitative measurement and comparison of action steps before completing the task), and the final task is expressed in numeric indicators, as a rule, it is possible only for a short period of time, the longer the time interval, the greater the error;
2- Strategy - i.e. the general model of behavior / work that allows you to achieve the desired state (or maintain ionic), consists of performing a number of tasks.

And in fact there are areas that study strategic planning in a purely peaceful aspect at enterprises, the most obvious - strategic marketing and management, although there is no reason to argue about the applied aspect, since these disciplines are quite difficult to implement in practice.

Valery Chugreev 01.11.2008 08:01

\u003e Sergey Alexandrovich

Thank you for your comment. About the detailed plan. This is not always possible. Try to take some creative work and make a detailed and detailed plan for it. With numerical indicators, resources involved, etc. It will be fun to look at this plan. And listen to the opinion of the executor of this plan.

For example, take the well-known history of the creation of the table of periodic elements. I strongly doubt that Mendeleev planned his enlightenment in a dream, and I also doubt that he knew the exact timing of the completion of his work.

There are many evolutionary processes. When something is created by numerous iterations and approximations to the ideal (optimal) state. Here the plan is not that it is not possible at all, it will simply be of the most general, approximate form and its usefulness will be minimal.

Summing up. For some processes and projects, it really makes sense to use detailed, formalized approaches. In these cases, the model of presentation of the strategy-tactics you have voiced will be appropriate. For some, initially not formalized (or difficult to formalize) tasks, this model will not be adequate.

I am in favor of various models and representations of strategy-tactics!

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Oleg 05.06.2011 13:50

I agree with Sergei Alexandrovich ...

Strategy and tactics also relate as an abstract concept of a car with a more concrete concept of the NGK BRK-11 spark plug standing in it. In addition, a strategy, in principle, cannot be developed without the use of systemic approaches in determining non-local interactions in the system itself and it with the environment external to it, and tactical specific actions can be based on the fact that they are worked out on the basis of a strategy, where work is by definition systemic interactions carried out.

A specific plan for tactical actions can and should be developed, but the plan itself is not as important as planning, i.e. constant adjustment of the original plan.

Success is the crossroads of planned actions and opportunities that unfold as planned actions are taken. Mendeleev, of course, did not plan his enlightenment, but I am sure to carry out specific work - yes.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Valery Chugreev 05.06.2011 15:50

Oleg, if you take a different scale, for example, the scale of construction, then the car in this case will become a tactical element. Strategy and tactics are relative concepts. I believe that it is not correct to consider them as absolute concepts. It is not correct to say that a spark plug is a tactic, and a car is a strategy. They are such only in relation to each other. Even a spark plug is a strategy for its component parts (spark plug device).

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Max 21.05.2013 16:02

not that I wanted to screw up this comment, it is even very adequate, but the example with Mendeleev is wrong. The fact that he saw his table in a dream is a myth. he created it as a result of long and careful work

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Aleksandrovich 01.11.2008 08:36

The question is not what can be used for what, but what are the differences between one and the other, i.e. strategic and tactical plan, based on this, the description presented on the site seemed to me more than incorrect and not revealing the fundamental difference between one and the other ... and that there are very specific definitions, if you look in the same textbooks on strategic management / marketing, you will find them .. ...

it was I who formulated a little incorrectly - \\ "the desired state \\", more likely of course - \\ "goal \\", that is, for strategy and tactics there is a very specific difference in achieving it - \\ "goal \\" (but there is a specific definition in the textbooks) ...

about the works of Mendeleev and generally scientific, creative, etc. - I completely and completely agree!

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Aleksandrovich 01.11.2008 08:42

And by the way, I completely disagree with the statement that for tactical literate planning you need to have less intelligence or intelligence than for strategic ... just a different outlook and perception of this and that type of thinking is more conducive to one or another planning (in terms of effective achievement) ...

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Valery Chugreev 01.11.2008 10:26

\u003e Sergey Alexandrovich

\u003e it seemed to me more than incorrect and non-revealing fundamental difference between one and the other ...

That's right. We proceed from different premises. I believe that there is no fundamental difference. The only difference is the scale of the activity.

As for the "textbooks", I have a cautious attitude towards them. First, there are many things that are out of touch with life. Secondly, as far as I know, currently there are simply no textbooks where strategy is considered in an interdisciplinary perspective. Sometimes we came across mathematical models, but for the most part they were complex and indigestible descriptions from the “thing in itself” series, understandable only to mathematicians.

As a rule, books on applied strategy are specialized books that solve problems in a specific, narrow area. For example, I have a book on my bookshelf by Jack Trout: Trout on Strategy. What strategy is he writing about? Positioning strategy, marketing strategy. Also with most of the other "tutorials". These are private solutions, the adequacy of which strongly depends on the area of \u200b\u200btheir application.

Perhaps I just don't know any sensible books on this topic. I will gladly listen to your recommendations.

I try to figure it out myself, based on my experience. For me, books are, first of all, a reason to think, but not a reason to take everything written at face value.

“In military science, a distinction is usually made between strategy and tactics. The strategist orders to carry out certain movements and maneuvers, the tactician obeys orders without delving into their reasons. The tactician performs the tasks set by the strategist. The strategist must know the whole picture of the war; there are no tactics. He must only investigate the circumstances that will facilitate the solution of the task assigned to him, and weigh them. No matter how significant the difference between a tactician and a strategist in war may seem, in principle it is not so great. After all, the difference lies only in the scope of the tasks set. " Emmanuel Lasker, Fight.

\u003e ... and by the way, I completely disagree with the statement that for tactical literate planning you need to have less intelligence or ingenuity than for strategic ...

Incidentally, I did not claim this. This is probably from the "textbooks" ...

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Oleg 05.06.2011 14:29

"The only difference is the scale of the activity." quantity turns into quality. Here's a tangible difference. You can tolerate losing in certain tactical moves to win in strategy - a strategy with gambit elements.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Valery Chugreev 05.06.2011 15:29

So what? There are some tactical moves, on the success or failure of which the whole strategy directly depends. Your example about the "NGK BRK-11" spark plug is just from this series.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Ed 07.02.2016 19:31

Valery, I fully support your explanation.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Arkady Paserba 13.03.2009 14:45

Colleagues,
accidentally came across your correspondence, preparing for his next lecture on \\ "Strategic Management \\" at the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University
Thank you for your clever thoughts, on the whole I agree with both of you - both scale matters, and attachment to resources, funds, technology, too.
In army practice, this interpretation initially took root: if tactics is the art of waging combat for the purpose of actual combat, then strategy is the art of waging combat for the purpose of war as a whole (according to K. Klausewitz). That is, a strategy is always a kind of backward thought in the strategist's head that does not follow explicitly from the existing situation, positions, balance of power, etc. And even they are often contradicting, running counter to the declared goals and explicitly taken actions (a red herring, for example).
Thus, strategy is a more complex, higher, superstructure form of human activity than tactics.
Well, let's not forget about the need for a STRATEGO - a person of incomparably broader horizons (it does not matter - in business, in politics, in war ...), and most importantly - having a much higher level of SUBJECT (according to A.I. Prigogine) , that is, self-sustainability, self-activity, self-sufficiency, rather than even the best leader-tactician, performer of local tasks received by him exclusively from some higher level. A strategist is always a player and never a pawn in someone else's game ... No one gives him orders or sets tasks. Remember why Stalin \\ "pushed \\" strategists like Timoshenko, Budyonny and Voroshilov back in the initial period of the war to some kind of militarily insignificant positions and put in their place younger and, in their own way, remarkable STRATEGIC PERFORMERS (that is, in fact, frontline tacticians and army scale) like Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Konev, Vasilevsky, etc.? Say, excuse me, Semyon Mikhalych and Kliment Yefremych, you guys are good, loyal, there’s no reason to put you up against the wall or throw you in jail for nothing - but too subjective, everyone has his own head ... I would have good tacticians-performers, and I will make strategists-marshals myself.
Well, once again: tactics are always a very material, resourceful, \\ "brutal \\" thing based on the performance characteristics of specific weapon models, the existing types of weapons, uniforms and ammunition, the organization of troops, the methods of their warfare, already enshrined in the charters and manuals. ..
The strategy is rather mental: values, attitudes, managerial experience, competencies, long-term relationships and preferences.
And one more, perhaps, serious difference: when we say \\ "strategy \\" - we mean some vital conflict, usually antagonistic, generated by our existence in a highly competitive environment. Or, in any case, our vague suspicion that somewhere such a hostile environment exists and we still have to face it.
In this sense, tactical conflicts are always less acute and often end in reconciliation and even cooperation between the parties.
Something like this

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Tatyana 06.09.2013 12:29

Arkady, I read your entry with interest. Thanks. By chance I found myself in such a wonderful male company, where no one offends or humiliates anyone, there is just a useful exchange of thoughts of people who respect the interlocutor.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Valery Chugreev 13.03.2009 15:03

\u003e Arkady Paserba

Thanks. Interesting considerations.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

casual passer-by 23.03.2009 17:10

tactics are methods of performing a specific task.
strategy is the art of creating and taking advantage of the formulation of objectives for tactics.
the fundamental difference between tactics and strategy is that strategy has one invariable goal, while tactics's goal / task may change depending on the situation.

lied with Arkady that the strategist and tactics are distinguished by the way of thinking. the strategist must be able to think abstractly and plan for the future. a tactician who performs a specific task here and now.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Alexei 20.07.2009 16:34

I sincerely admit that I am surprised by your dispute.
In my opinion, there is no contradiction between the stated points of view on strategy and tactics.
The author is right in describing tactics as a strategy of a more local level, which in turn is divided into even more local levels.
Moreover, each level has its own tools, which were named by the commentators.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Valery Chugreev 20.07.2009 20:37

\u003e Alexey

And how surprised I am ... It's obvious: there can be any number of levels of abstraction / detail. A matter of convenience.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Roman_Ukraine 23.07.2009 18:55

Good afternoon!
Interesting discussion.
I would like to support the idea of \u200b\u200bSergei Alexandrovich and Arkady Paserba that in the definitions of strategy and tactics there are not only, and not so much, differences in the levels of detail. If we are guided by such considerations, then it turns out that each tactical task for a task below a level is strategic. Probably, such a task can be more accurately called a tactical higher level but not strategic. The main difference between these categories probably still concerns their deep meaning. I'm not ready now to offer my exact definition of strategy and tactics, but it seems to me that tactics are designed to achieve momentary tasks and momentary benefits (which in fact, in the long term, may not be a benefit at all, but even a reason for loss), and the strategy is just that pointer , the goal of which is to achieve long-term benefits and achieve a strategic goal. There are desires to continue the discussion!

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Timofey Lykov 26.11.2009 18:45

Branding (marketing), in my opinion, lies at the junction of exact numbers (the customer's company money) and creativity (effective communication with consumers). As a result, there is no consensus in this area about strategy and tactics.

The problem I see is that most successful businessmen, tactics and strategists, theorists suspect that they are disconnected from life (which is often true). Businessmen quite easily drive theorists into a dead end with real-life examples. Usually their questions are: What exactly do you propose? What needs to be done now? Is this your subjective opinion? They also tell us it is important to know what to do today, what specific decision needs to be made. And what will happen tomorrow, we will think about it later.

Businessmen are essentially more successful people and, accordingly, their opinion is more significant. And one could give the victory in the dispute to businessmen that a good strategy is tactics.

But these same successful businessmen at some point run into the ceiling (a boat in the bathroom) and then it turns out that there are not enough tactics in order to reach a new level of development. Here their confidence begins to waver and the need arises to figure out what is wrong with their tactics. And then it turns out that the problem is in the original strategy. And they have few skills in developing strategies, so there is a need for strategists, although they look like subjective theorists (thanks to Arkady Paserba for thinking about subjectivity, it is absolutely new for me, practitioners tortured me with their accusations of subjectivity. Now I don't even know what happened to do it - take care or part).

It turns out that the practitioners are right because they are more successful. But they are successful only within the framework of the once chosen strategy, albeit not consciously, that this is their strategy, which both forms success and creates a framework. But if growth is needed, then the strategists are right, because they have the skill of developing a new strategy, they are able to look at the problem more broadly.

This means that there is a place in life and tactics and strategies depend on the situation, the greater the need at the moment. And here the mechanism is triggered that they hear the loudest. Practitioners win here because I know how to shut the mouth of theorists.

I found an interesting discussion on business strategy in the book
Kenichi Ohmae. Thinking strategist. The art of business in Japanese.
It turns out this is a cult book in Japan. And if I assessed correctly, perhaps this book had a huge impact on the development of Japan in the 70s, in fact, Kenichi Ohmae helped Japanese companies change the country. Japan from a country of imitators, become a country of the latest technology. I read that even in the field of clothing and footwear design, Japan is ahead of the world by 2-3 years. I really don't know if Kenichi Ohmae's book influenced here.

Thanks to this book, I saw that business development is impossible without a strategy. I saw that directors and company owners have a responsibility to engage in strategy in order to ensure the company's success in the long term. And from my experience I know that our businessmen do not yet have this awareness. And ahead of us is the time of realizing that there is no future without a strategy. Other more advanced companies will come and take their place as leaders in the market.

It's like budgeting in the 90s, our businessmen did not know about it and did not need it. Few companies do not use this tool now. But the awareness of the need for financial management is easier - it is a more material service than strategic marketing. When businessmen understand that intangible asset management (which is branding) is more important than budgeting, it is difficult to say. In the meantime, disputes will arise as to which tactics or strategy is more important. And what is what. Who is right to judge the time.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Valery Chugreev 26.11.2009 19:48

\u003e Timofey Lykov
Thanks for the interesting thoughts.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Eugene 24.12.2009 23:49

let me dilute your conclusions with an everyday case: our chief yesterday at a meeting said several times about our partners: they have many tacticians, but no strategists. And he made a big emphasis on this, attached importance to the phrase. I'm afraid no one understood him. Everyone thought feverishly in deathly silence: what is the difference between tactics and strategy, and how to understand it, in what sense. This made me search the internet for differences. Thanks, now I know. Wikipedia, by the way, has good explanations.
I’m thinking: should the boss make such accents, after all, no one understood him? Either we are so illiterate and not erudite, or he went overboard. However, even on the Internet, people do not come to an understanding and correct interpretation of these two words very quickly, so it's not just our "limitedness" that matters. IMHO, very similar concepts in meaning, and making a strong emphasis on use is only suitable in serious business correspondence, and that is undesirable. Unless, of course, you want to be understood correctly and want to exclude misinterpretation. Thanks.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Yastrebov Alexander 27.04.2010 14:11

The discussion is very interesting! I will express myself briefly with your permission.
Any strategist is primarily a tactician. without knowing tactical actions you cannot improve the result of the general system, that is, you cannot be a strategist! but there is one more thought, neither the strategy is always correct, and if the tactician starts to implement it, then the general idea and goal may simply collapse ((here is the advice of a tactician to carry out the strategy, since the tactician is much more aware of the knowledge of the pitfalls, and can indicate the correct course with a small amendment))) thank you all for the comments

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

reader V. Vestnik 11.10.2010 20:19

I will speak on the basis of global considerations about the strategy.
A strategy can be built when you see the situation globally, taking into account the vital values, without which any strategy will sooner or later lead to collapse. Without considering these values, the implementation of the strategy will only be effective in a short period of time.

For example, MNTK clinic (eye microsurgery), read the story of its director. Link to the Word file, if anyone is interested. Interesting moments about the start-up, about the history of the foundation and the history after the death of the founder.
The same problem with our economy - it is necessary not to improve the existing one, but to change the fundamental basis.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Yurok 12.12.2010 10:22

A strategy is an overall plan of action to achieve a goal. A plan that will never go perfectly, since the human mind cannot foresee all the events in the future. Therefore, tactics come to the aid of strategy. Tactics are actions in a specific situation for the benefit of strategy. Tactical actions cannot be planned, they give a person unpredictability, flexibility of thinking and creative implementation. Strategy is a plan; tactics are a step.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Screw 20.12.2010 06:05

Can I say this:
Strategist - a person who answers the questions Who / What / Who / What / Where / When.
A tactician is a person who answers the questions of Who / What / How and Who / What / Who / What / Where / When at his level.
So The strategist never answers the questions Who / What / How, otherwise he is no different from the Tactician.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Valery Chugreev 20.12.2010 15:21

\u003e Screw
Well, if you said, then you can.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 11.01.2011 18:27

I read with interest the exchange of views, which in one case was even called a discussion.
But there is no discussion. Most authors agree that "many cats in their unity form a tiger." "And the differences between a tiger and a cat are conventional: a large cat is a small tiger, and a tiger cub is an overgrown domestic cat."
No, gentlemen. There is a fundamental difference between strategy and tactics. I personally agree with the author, who claims that strategy and tactics are not a continuation, but a forced alternative to each other.
This point of view is described in more detail in the article by E.Yu. Sapozhnikova. "Strategy and tactics: criteria of distinction". Management magazine in Russia and abroad. 2010 / No. 4.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Victor A. 21.03.2011 21:15

It seems to me that the topic has been distracted. Strategy and tactics as concepts exist regardless of the successes or failures of businessmen and their views and disputes with theorists. Success or failure in business is not an indicator of correctness in the definition of a concept. And the fact that for one a strategy, for another, a long passed stage in business and a strategy is ALREADY not ... Strategy is the initial setting of common tasks and the definition of the main directions of work to achieve the main goal (in war, in business, in scientific work , expeditions ...), and tactics is a way, a way, a method ... of solving or performing each separate task or a separate direction of the strategic plan. These concepts are not alternative to each other and are not interchangeable, and also do not pass into each other when the situation changes and the people performing certain actions and do not depend on their pride, views and assessment of their own actions. I believe that business simply borrowed these concepts and now assigns new properties and values \u200b\u200bto them. In fact, the strategy defines important and significant changes in relation to not one person or group, not even an enterprise or organization, but peoples, tribes, states ... large territories that affect a large number of people and do not require their consent ... Therefore, not all businessmen are Macedonian, and their business plans are strategies ... It's me, as a tractor driver ... from my cab ...

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 22.03.2011 17:21

Firstly, the level of training of domestic "tractor drivers" is pleasantly surprising.
Secondly, if a strategy is "the initial setting of common tasks ...", then what term should be used to designate a refined, modified, based on the circumstances revealed, setting of tasks?
Thirdly, what is the name of a phenomenon that "is ALREADY not a strategy ..." (because history knows analogs), but allows to achieve fundamental changes in the alignment of forces in the market, in the industry, etc.
Fourth. What is the name of something that "determines important and significant changes" in relatively small tribes and is not "the initial setting of tasks ..."?

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Victor A. 05.10.2011 00:18

You flatter me ..))

The clarified, modified, based on the circumstances revealed, the setting of tasks, I would refer to a change in the plan of tactical actions, unless these tasks already radically change the general tasks ...

"... to achieve fundamental changes in the balance of power in the market, in the industry, etc." without a strategy, it is possible only as a result of His Majesty Chance or as a result of a bad strategy of competitors who wanted success so much that they were too smart. And the question is that those who have achieved success may not know about it ...

And the fact that "determines important and significant changes" in relatively small tribes and at the same time is not "the initial setting of tasks ..." - this is how the forest is chopped, chips fly ..)) Bedouins, as far as I understand, made a leap in development thanks to development the surrounding society as a whole ... I do not think that if developed countries were at the level of development at the beginning of the last century, in the Emirates now they would live as they live. But after all, the implementation of strategic tasks for the development of other countries gives impetus to the development of backward countries through trade, tourism ... There are still natural disasters that, without any strategies, make important changes to entire civilizations ...

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 28.10.2011 15:58

1. Should it be understood from your words that a refined, modified strategy is a tactic?

2. As a result of "ev case" you can get a lot. But this does not mean - to achieve. If the "plan" of a person's actions is to use chance, then this is not a strategist or a tactician, but, forgive the term, a "freeloader". It is these gentlemen who have big calculations for the Chance.

3. So all the same. What do you think should be called the action plan of a small tribe, which fundamentally changes the position of this tribe in the existing system. This should be called a strategy or tactic because the tribe is small.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Yuri Igorevich 13.04.2011 23:31

Personally, I came to the following generalization of these two concepts:
Tactics are actions within one given system aimed at the efficient use of its resources to achieve a specific goal.
Strategy is actions at the intersystem level aimed either at changing the current system to a more favorable one in order to achieve a common goal, or at preventing changes in the current system in an unfavorable direction.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 31.05.2011 19:11

Each system can be viewed as a sum of subsystems.

It turns out "actions within one given system", consisting of many subsystems - this is a tactic! Or is it a strategy, only a subsystem one.

With this approach, gentlemen, we will leave endless conversations about the opposition of "part and whole" and return to the fact that "tactics are part of strategy." And "many cats in their unity form a tiger."

No! I agree with E. Sapozhnikova that the differences between strategy and tactics are not in the subject of their application, but in the principles of their formation. They are alternatives to each other. In everyday life, this is more easily expressed by the formula: "I don't have time for fat, I wish I could live!"

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Yuri Igorevich 02.06.2011 03:38

Sergei, you have completely distorted the essence. You have tried to find the fundamental differences between tactics and strategy. In my formulation, the difference is fundamental. And absolutely unambiguous.

For example, you decide for yourself to be an honest and frank person, always and with everyone. This is a strategic decision. With them you have defined the system in which you will make decisions. And now the search for a way to act in a specific situation while remaining honest and frank (that is, actions within a specific system) is a tactic.

What does the subsystem have to do with it? What other oppositions between "part and whole"? Perhaps you just don't understand what a systematic approach is.

Of course, you can use borderline examples. They say that sometimes it is impossible to clearly draw the line (the so-called "heap paradox"). But this is a very stupid approach. Where the line is blurred, it is better not to use such terminology. But where everything is defined, what exactly do you disagree with in the above wording?

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 23.06.2011 17:29

I “maybe just don’t understand what a systematic approach is” because the keys to this truth are only with you.

But I still don't understand why what you call "This strategic decision" deserves to be called "strategic." Where is the criterion!

I also don’t understand why the “stupid approach” is to refer to the “heap paradox”.

Although I can guess what is the reason for the reluctance to consider borderline examples.

And rightly so! It is better to understand where everything is already clear.

And I do not agree with your wording because it differs little from the generally accepted belief that tactics are part of strategy. And then the cat is really a part of the tiger.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

nicholas 06.06.2011 13:07

Strategy - the goal and plan for capturing the fortress.

The tactic is to take the outer city, then the citadel; digging, ramming, shelling, siege; bribery, poisoning, etc.

Thus, if the strategy is a general plan for achieving the final goal and general principles for achieving this goal, then tactics are not only parts of this plan (more detailed), but also the timing, means, tools, correction of this plan (for example, advancing - retreat ), the use of an unexpected event and much more, which ultimately helps to achieve the goal.

And if the goal is to capture the country, then the capture of the fortress will be a tactic.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 23.06.2011 17:45

That is, from your point of view, strategy and tactics are relative concepts. Then any set of actions can be considered a strategy (relative). Which, however, we see almost everywhere. For small things, what do not do - everything is STRATEGY!

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergei 09.06.2011 23:34

Strategy - what to do?
Tactics - what are we going to do?

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 23.06.2011 17:55

In these terms, it would be more correct to say:

Strategy is what we want.

Tactics is "you never know what we want, but in these conditions we are forced to do what we can!"

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Hmm 03.06.2012 14:07

Arrived, tactics in any case must follow the goals of the strategy.

However, your reasoning is full of contradictions. Above, you agreed with the author. However, the author states:

"The nesting dolls in which others are placed is a strategy, and those nesting dolls inside it are tactics, but they can also be a strategy in relation to the nesting dolls embedded in them.", Which contradicts your "No!

I agree with E. Sapozhnikova that the differences between strategy and tactics are not in the subject of their application, but in the principles of their formation. "

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 08.11.2012 20:27

First, tactics only "should" follow the objectives of the strategy when it is understood as part of the strategy. But this is a purely "matryoshka" paradigm.

I proceed from the conviction that "tactics are a forced alternative to strategy." Most of the so-called "strategies" are adjustments to the situation. These are forced i.e. essentially tactical decisions. A strategy (which is without quotes) is a plan to transform a situation, not follow it.

Secondly, as they would say in Odessa: "so and where is it full of contradictions."

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Masha 25.08.2011 23:54

If you had to choose when hiring as a deputy, who should you choose: a strategist or a tactician?

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Victor A. 05.10.2011 00:37

Masha, be afraid of the deputy strategist, he can take your place ...)), but the benefit from him in business can be in the whole enterprise. The tactician knows what and how to do to accomplish the task assigned to him, but his horizons are narrower. The strategist is more important than tactics, because he thinks wider. And if you are smart enough to set a task, then it will be enough to find a way to fulfill it ... The main thing is, do not take the advice of a deputy strategist to the leadership on the fly, you must be a more skillful strategist ...

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Alexei 04.10.2011 18:49

Nice, helpful post. Thanks.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Gulyaev Alexander 04.11.2011 10:57

Very interesting. thanks

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Svetlana 05.11.2011 17:31

In family counseling, I often raise the question: who is the strategist in your family? The answers are different, but more women call themselves strategists in the family. And from here many troubles and problems arise, a woman, in her natural essence, should still be a tactician who knows well practical skills in life. But where we are going is a strategic question for a man and it should determine the movement of the family in the future. Up to understanding how his children will grow up and how his grandchildren will respect him and whether his great-grandchildren will remember him.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Valery Chugreev 05.11.2011 18:11

\u003e Svetlana
\u003e From this position, strategy and tactics are the principle of matryoshka or goals that differ in depth and foresight?

Rather, the second (goals). More on this topic: "Strategy and tactics". But on the topic of strategic and tactical goals: "Objectives".

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Zaur 01.04.2012 22:07

A good topic, I think commentators will tell and explain this topic more broadly, but the essence is the same. The owner of the topic is a strategist and the rest are tactics of this strategy.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Anastasia 04.05.2012 18:35

indicative:

Once upon a time there were mice and they all hurt. Once they went to a wise owl and said:
- Wise owl, help with advice. We all offend, cats are different, owls. what
do we do?
The owl thought and said:
- And you become hedgehogs. Hedgehogs have needles, no one touches them.
The mice were delighted and ran home. But on the way, one mouse said:
- How do we become hedgehogs? - and everyone ran back to ask
this question to the wise owl. They came running and asked.
And the owl answered:
- Guys, you don't load me with nonsense. I AM STRATEGY.

so all the same, Owl is a tactician or a strategist?

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Valery Chugreev 04.05.2012 19:48

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 08.11.2012 20:42

Valery
In this story, the owl is a strategist, only from its own point of view.
And from the point of view of mice, he is most likely "manilov"

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Yuri from Karaganda 05.04.2013 16:28

I would not call Owl here either a strategist or a tactician. I would like to see the tactics of turning mice into hedgehogs. This is Witchcraft. If I don't have a phone on an uninhabited island to call, then the strategy of calling for help on the phone on this island wakes me up to be idiot, and I'm an idiot, not a strategist: mrgreen: but I'll think like an owl that I'm a strategist. ..

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Alexander 12.09.2012 14:08

Forgive me, maybe a little off topic, but it's so nice to read both the post and the discussion of this post ... I'm already tired of the debates (discussions) in the "fool himself" format ... okay, I'm done ...))) ) sorry again

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Maple 11.10.2012 03:33

took a quick look at the discussion ...

it seems to me that none of the participants understands or accepts the idea of \u200b\u200bthe first post. and the thought, by the way, is new and deep.

and personally I find this concept very convenient: there is no difference between tactical or strategic development of actions, these are absolutely relative concepts. therefore, the basic strategy is introduced as a starting point. the same decision-making methods can be applied at any level, and their effectiveness is independent of the level.

at any level, any person must draw up quantitative plans, implement them by coordinating their actions in fact, and again draw up quantitative plans at some arbitrarily chosen stage. otherwise he turns into a theoretical fanatic or a monkey. (time management is relevant even for a janitor or watchman)

i think that people refuse to accept this idea for one very simple reason: it is necessary to justify the very beloved in Russia a priori, budo, the work of the coordinator (leader) by its nature has some superiority over the work of the coordinated.
yes, there is an acute shortage of good leaders, the main reason, it seems to me, is in the values \u200b\u200bof our culture. many qualities of a good leader are considered evil and are destroyed. people who enjoy public approval and who seem to us (including 95% of this audience) to be good leaders in fact, by their very nature, are not able to do the job of a leader.

and one of the main anti-organizational premises is that the work of a strategist, by its nature, has some superiority over the work of a tactician.

let's destroy our a priori, this is the root of almost all problems. doubting everything and experimenting is the way of high efficiency.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 08.11.2012 20:59

Without touching on the topic of depth, I would like to ask, what exactly is the novelty of the idea of \u200b\u200bconventionality of differences in tactics and strategy.

As far as I know, the idea of \u200b\u200bany action plan to call a strategy is as old as the world, because, apart from the size, there seems to be no difference. And any awkward and long-term (due to mediocrity) "tactics" can safely claim the title of "strategy".

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Anna 15.11.2012 10:00

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 05.03.2013 20:40

Anna, for various reasons, we largely abuse the labels "strategy" and "tactics", which we try to stick to any action plan in which we are personally interested.

Ambition motivates us to put a “strategy” label on our plans. Well, if these plans are also long-term, then this is without any doubt "STRATEGIES".

This is what usually prompts us to agree with the formulas:

tactic1 + tactic2 \u003d strategy

Small strategy \u003d tactics

Large tactics \u003d strategy.

In this regard, any long plan of an incompetent boss will be recognized by the "Strategy".

Indeed, look, almost everyone is engaged only in the "Strategy".

In my opinion, this is a profanation.

It seems to me that the label “strategy” should be treated more carefully. Don't let it get caught on any plan of action. An action plan should be recognized as a strategy if the plan changes the “rules of the game” by forcing other players to conform to those rules.

Now, to your question.

Of course, hypothetically, individual business units may have their own strategies. But this happens only when this unit is trying to establish its own rules of the game for all other units, to adjust other units for themselves. This happens all the time, when at some point the actions of the enterprise are determined by the marketing service or financiers, and sometimes personnel officers. Sometimes this allows the enterprise to win, more often it does not.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Pavel 15.01.2013 23:01

Consent is a product of non-resistance of the parties THANKS FOR LIKBEZ

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

hongma 22.04.2013 20:54

Yes, they were pretty tricky about a generally simple question.
Strategy is the goal of struggle, action.
Tactics are methods of achieving it.
In an anecdote about mice and an owl, the owl gave the mice a target. And the way to achieve it did not give - that is, it is accurate in self-determination. But a mouse, say, offering to pull on the thorns and attach them to the wool - will be a tactician.
In principle, a "nesting doll" situation is possible, when the method of achieving a certain goal for a lower level becomes the goal itself. But this is not essential for the very distinction between strategy and tactics.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Sergey Alekseevich 15.07.2013 22:56

My dear hongma, not understanding the complexity of the question does not make this question easy. Moreover, such a frank misunderstanding.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

Arsen 27.07.2013 00:09

very clearly and clearly expressed my explanation!

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

paul. 18.08.2013 00:44

can we say this: that strategy is thinking about "action", and tactics is "action" itself?

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

alexei 02.11.2013 23:15

the differences are quite accessible and clearly expressed from the very beginning.

[Reply] [Cancel reply]

How is tactics different from strategy?

Strategy and tactics are, of course, military terms, but in general they apply to all walks of life. For example, a woman develops a plan to conquer a man. For this, she has a desire to conquer him with beauty. This is her strategy. The tactics will be manifested in what cosmetics the woman will use, at what time, in what quantity.

If a woman wants to conquer a man with her body (that is, another strategy), then the tactics will be different - she will wear blouses with a deep neckline, skirts with a slot or mini-skirts.

There are women who choose the strategy of conquering men through their culinary skills. Accordingly, the tactics here will also be different. Already I will not describe carefully which one, but women know her very well.

So, strategy and tactics always go side by side, being a different level of concretization of a solution to a problem.

In essence, tactics are strategy. They differ in that the strategy is a more global, larger-scale understanding of tactics. A strategy is when, in addition to tactics, you are also building something and aiming for the future.

In short: strategy is a plan of action, tactics is a manner of action. The first is the process of thinking (as: strategic approach to the case), the second is the behavioral process (as: tactful communication with people).

Tactics and Strategy These terms are used by the command of staff. Let's say a war consists of several battles, and the sum of these battles is called a campaign. You can lose the battle, the most important thing is to win the military campaign. For example, the headquarters was given a task as it was in the film Storm Gate, a small army, let's say 50 people who are based on the mountain to lure a large group of enemies, and then the headquarters would send helicopters and destroy the enemy - this was the strategy of the headquarters, of course those commanders who were on the mountain these plans did not know the strategy and they had to use battle tactics how to hold out until reinforcements arrived, since the weather was bad and the turntables were not sent, they sent foot support.

Strategy is a more global concept than tactics. Strategy is a general task or plan to achieve a goal. And you can accomplish a strategic task using various tactics, all kinds of methods.

Tactics are directly subordinated to the chosen strategy, they are like ways of implementing a global plan.

Strategy is an analysis of actions in general that will be performed in order to achieve something. That is, a progressive and scrupulous analysis.

Tactics is the form in which all this will be carried out, for example, attacking or defensive.

Tactics is an integral part strategy. Tactics are different from strategy the scale and depth of the time period.

Historically, tactics is the military art of building battle formations. In the modern sense of the word, tactics are planning and implementation of plans on a limited scale and over a short period of time.

Strategy it also implies long-term planning, setting ultimate goals, the achievement of which is carried out by solving tactical problems.

In business, strategic planning is usually done for a period of three to ten years. At the same time, consistent goals are set and the dates of their achievement are determined. Then the plan is broken down into tasks and the resources needed to solve them are determined. So that's consistent problem solving is a tactic, and achieving goals is a strategy.

I'll add a little easier with an example. The Second World War is going on. Tactics is the task of winning here and now, preferably with low losses, in a certain sector of the front. For example, in the Battle of Kursk. The strategy is to win the war. Global tactics, so to speak, for a long period. It counts other numbers. If in tactics they operate with units of troops, then in strategy the numbers are already orders of magnitude higher. Something like this.

There are guidelines for when to use tactics and when to use strategy. Tactics are better suited in understandable situations when the ultimate goal has clear outlines, when the problem is not being solved for the first time, i.e. before that there were already similar situations. And the strategy is suitable for unclear goals, under complex and contradictory circumstances. Strategy is the foundation of the business. It is important that for the high-quality implementation of the strategy in life, the performer also needs a set of tactical techniques. In total, the success of the whole business depends on knowledge and skills in both areas.

I think that a strategy is some kind of global idea, a long-term plan for the implementation and solution of any problem or idea. And tactics is a narrower concept. It can be said Methods, Ways, Prims ... etc, with the help of which you will implement this strategy of yours. In general, a strategy, it defines more globally and on a large scale, let's say your behavior, over large areas of time, it includes a gene plan, some key points that you must fulfill at a certain time. And tactics ... We can say that it goes to help the strategy, this is how and with the help of which you implement your strategy, your task directly in life, in real circumstances. We can say that the Strategy is goals and objectives, and tactics are ways and methods of solving these problems. Tactical prims are a well-known phrase.

It might be useful to read: