Strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Strategy (disambiguation).
Strategy, a word of military origin, refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
In military usage strategy is distinct from tactics, which are concerned with the conduct of an
engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. How a
battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms and conditions that it is fought on and whether it
should be fought at all is a matter of strategy, which is part of the four levels of warfare: political
goals or grand strategy, strategy, operations, and tactics. Building on the work of many thinkers
on the subject, one can define strategy as "a comprehensive way to try to pursue political ends,
including the threat or actual use of force, in a dialectic of wills – there have to be at least two
sides to a conflict. These sides interact, and thus a Strategy will rarely be successful if it shows
no adaptability."[1]
Grand strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For grand strategy in wargaming, see Grand strategy wargame.
Grand strategy comprises the "purposeful employment of all instruments of power available to a
security community".[1] Military historian B. H. Liddell Hart says about grand strategy:
[T]he role of grand strategy – higher strategy – is to co-ordinate and direct all the resources of a
nation, or band of nations, towards the attainment of the political object of the war – the goal
defined by fundamental policy.
Grand strategy should both calculate and develop the economic resources and man-power of
nations in order to sustain the fighting services. Also the moral resources – for to foster the
people's willing spirit is often as important as to possess the more concrete forms of power.
Grand strategy, too, should regulate the distribution of power between the several services, and
between the services and industry. Moreover, fighting power is but one of the instruments of
grand strategy – which should take account of and apply the power of financial pressure, and, not
least of ethical pressure, to weaken the opponent's will. ...
Furthermore, while the horizons of strategy is bounded by the war, grand strategy looks beyond
the war to the subsequent peace. It should not only combine the various instruments, but so
regulate their use as to avoid damage to the future state of peace – for its security and prosperity.
[2]
Issues of grand strategy typically include the choice of primary versus secondary theaters in war,
distribution of resources among the various services, the general types of armaments
manufacturing to favor, and which international alliances best suit national goals. Grand strategy
has considerable overlap with foreign policy, but grand strategy focuses primarily on the military
implications of policy, and is typically directed by the political leadership of a country, with input
from the most senior military officials. The development of a nation's grand strategy may extend
across many years or even multiple generations.
Some have extended the concept of grand strategy to describe multi-tiered strategies in general,
including strategic thinking at the level of corporations and political parties.
Military tactics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Tactic (method))
Military tactics, the art of organizing an army, are the techniques for using weapons or military
units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle.[1] Changes in philosophy and
technology over time have been reflected in changes to military tactics.
In current military thought, tactics are the lowest of three planning levels, involving small units up
to a few hundred[citation needed] personnel. The highest tier of planning is the strategy, which is
concerned with the overall means and plan for achieving a long-term outcome. An intermediate
level, which converts the strategy (high level) into tactics (low level) is theoperational level that
deals with formations of units.
[edit]Concept
German World War I observation postdisguised as a tree.
Military tactics are at once both a science and an art. There are basic principles which — if
followed — at least lend competency, 'battle drills' which try to promote automatic responses to
given situations, and dozens of guides and instructions that have been written over the centuries.
For some, tactics are instinctive. Sometimes they can be taught. At its heart, tactics is a shifting
amalgam of psychology, physics, and statistics.[citation needed]
Some practices have not changed since the dawn of warfare: ambushes, seeking and turning
flanks, maintaining reconnaissance, creating and using obstacles and defences, etc. Using
ground to best advantage has not changed much either. Heights, rivers, swamps, passes, choke
points, and natural cover, can all be used in multiple ways. Before the nineteenth century, many
military tactics were confined to battlefield concerns: how to maneuver units during combat in
open terrain. Nowadays, specialized tactics exist for many situations, for example for securing a
room in a building.
What does change constantly is the technological dimension, as well as the sociology of
combatants. One might wish to reflect on the differences in the technology and society that
produced such different types of soldier or warrior as the Roman Legionary, Turk-Mongol Horse
Archer, the Chinese Crossbowman, the British Redcoat, or an Air Cavalry trooper. Each,
constrained by his weaponry, logistics and his social conditioning, would use a battlefield
differently, but would usually seek the same outcomes from their use of tactics.
Strategic thinking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recent strategic thought points ever more clearly towards the conclusion that the critical strategic
question is not “What?” (usually addressed by conventional thinking[1]), but “Why?” (or “How?”[1]).
The work of Mintzberg[2] and others who draw a distinction between strategic planning (defined as
systematic programming of pre-identified strategies) and strategic thinking (a more integrated
perspective on the organization) supports that conclusion.[3][4][5]Intensified exploration of strategy
from new directions is now coming together in the concept of what is being called strategic
thinking.[6] At this point, there is no generally accepted definition of the term, no common
agreement as to its role or importance, and no standardized list of key competencies of strategic
thinkers.[7] However, many agree that traditional models of strategy making (which are primarily
based on strategic planning) are not working.[8]
The lists in this article may contain items that are not notable,
not encyclopedic, or not helpful. Please help out by removing
such elements and incorporating appropriate items into the main
body of the article. (January 2008)
[edit]Strategic thinking vs. strategic planning
In the view of F. Graetz, strategic thinking and planning are “distinct, but interrelated and
complementary thought processes” that must sustain and support one another for effective
strategic management. Graetz's model holds that the role of strategic thinking is "to seek
innovation and imagine new and very different futures that may lead the company to redefine its
core strategies and even its industry". Strategic planning's role is "to realize and to support
strategies developed through the strategic thinking process and to integrate these back into the
business".[4]
According to J. M. Liedtka, strategic thinking differs from strategic planning along the following
dimensions of strategic management:[9]
Strategic Thinking Strategic Planning
Vision of the Only the shape of the future can be A future that is predictable and
Future predicted. specifiable in detail.
Strategic Formulation and implementation are The roles of formulation and
Formulation and interactive rather than sequential and implementation can be neatly
Implementation discrete. divided.
Senior executives obtain the
Lower-level managers have a voice in needed information from lower-
Managerial Role
strategy-making, as well as greater level managers, and then use it to
in Strategy
latitude to respond opportunistically to create a plan which is, in turn,
Making
developing conditions. disseminated to managers for
implementation.
Relies on self-reference – a sense of
strategic intent and purpose embedded in Asserts control through
the minds of managers throughout the measurement systems, assuming
Control organization that guides their choices on a that organizations can measure
daily basis in a process that is often and monitor important variables
difficult to measure and monitor from both accurately and quickly.
above.
All managers understand the larger
Lower-level managers need only
system, the connection between their roles
Managerial Role know his or her own role well and
and the functioning of that system, as well
in Implementation can be expected to defend only his
as the interdependence between the
or her own turf.
various roles that comprise the system.
Sees strategy and change as inescapably
linked and assumes that finding new
The challenge of setting strategic
Strategy Making strategic options and implementing them
direction is primarily analytic.
successfully is harder and more important
than evaluating them.
Process and Sees the planning process itself as a Focus is on the creation of the
Outcome critical value-adding element. plan as the ultimate objective.
[edit]Strategic thinking competencies
Liedtka observed five “major attributes of strategic thinking in practice” that resemble
competencies.[9]
The first competency, a systems perspective, refers to being able to understand implications of
strategic actions. "A strategic thinker has a mental model of the complete end-to-end system of
value creation, his or her role within it, and an understanding of the competencies it contains."[9]
A second competency underlying strategic thinking is intent focused which means more
determined and less distractible than rivals in the marketplace. Crediting Hamel and Prahalad
with popularizing the concept, Liedtka describes strategic intent as "the focus that allows
individuals within an organization to marshal and leverage their energy, to focus attention, to
resist distraction, and to concentrate for as long as it takes to achieve a goal."[9]
Thinking in time means being able to hold past, present and future in mind at the same time to
create better decision making and speed implementation. "Strategy is not driven by future intent
alone. It is the gap between today’s reality and intent for the future that is critical."[9] Scenario
planning is a practical application for incorporating "thinking in time" into strategy making.[10]
A fourth strategic thinking competency is being hypothesis driven, ensuring that both creative and
critical thinking are incorporated into strategy making. This competency explicitly incorporates the
scientific method into strategic thinking.[citation needed]
The final strategic thinking competency is intelligent opportunism, which means being responsive
to good opportunities. "The dilemma involved in using a well-articulated strategy to channel
organizational efforts effectively and efficiently must always be balanced against the risks of
losing sight of alternative strategies better suited to a changing environment."[9]