Replying to LO26135 --
Peggy,
I think that, in its most simplistic definition, strategy answers the
planning question of "how." Tactics (again simplistically) provide the
implementing responses of what, when, where, and who for every answer of
"how."
Strategic objectives provide the "how" for realizing a mission (or
purpose). The mission (and/or vision and values) usually provide the
answer to "why."
The structure for this seems to me a bit like fractals--
A high level of the organization determines the answer "how" to accomplish
a specific mission objective. The people charged with implementing this
strategy engage in tactical planning. However, each of the tactical
components may be connected to that rhetorical "how" question. (How will
we acquire the necessary resources? How will we get the resources where
we need them?) This implies that strategic planning occurs within the
context of tactical thinking...and, of course, that strategic thinking
demands that tactical decisions must be made.
I think that this is why discussions about strategies sometimes seem so
confusing. Strategy is defined by context and by the perspective of the
person who is defining it.
At least, that's how it appears to me.
regards,
Doc
> I don't quite get why "strategy" has to be about predictability,
>planning and control. I don't quite get why these terms - at least the
>planning part - is so bad in regards to building a learning culture. Why
>can't strategic management meet the needs of individual >organizations?
>Why can't strategic processes be used to support learning and change? (I
>would have thought you could not have learning and change without
>effective strategic processes and management.)
--"Richard Holloway" <learnshops@rciti.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.