STRATEGIES AND TACTICS

Greg V. Barcelon, Jr., Ph.D.

Principles Of Strategy And Tactics There is a story by A. Morgan Maree about a young boy whose friends jeered and derided him because when they offered him a nickel and a dime he would always take the nickel. And they would laugh at his stupidity until one of his friends took pity on him and said, Let me tell you, the dime even though it is smaller is worth twice as much as the nickel. So when they offer you a nickel or a dime, you should take the dime. The kid said, But if I ever took the dime, they would quit offering. This is a simple yet superb example of the interplay between strategy and tactics. The boy who took the nickel knew that he was going for a long play. Taking the dime would have only meant an immediate and short-term advantage. It is also the understanding of these nuances that enables smaller units to outdo bigger ones, organisations with reatively less resources continue to excel and seemingly dry issues can be revitalised Life is not about being the richest, the biggest, being the most handsome, or being the best in everything. Even the poor can influence the rich, the subordinate can empower the boss, and a buyer/seller situation may end up in the most satisfying cooperative interaction. Strategy Follows tactics The only goal of strategy is the achievement of the best tactical results. When a particular tactic is done well then it can deliver its full impact. Otherwise a tactic is no better then a tool that it inappropriately used. If the strategy drawn up does not facilitate production of the greatest impact in tactical results, then the given strategy is faulty, no matter how brilliantly conceived or eloquently presented. Imagine how useless a detailed flight plan developed by a 747 flight engineer is if the user is a navigator in a car rally.

In negotiation, as in life, a mans years of direct experience in a skill area or trade has its value precisely in that his knowledge of how to use a skill in the real world situation is an essential requirement of a good strategy formulation. A sound strategy emanates from the strategists personal intimacy with how to precisely execute a given tactic. If a person therefore knows only one tactic, then the effective strategy he will be able to develop will be limited to how that tactic can be put to use. If a negotiator knows no other way of getting to his objectives except through bluffing then his strategy will always be one which will prepare him to bluff as efficiently as possible. Indeed, it is true that if only tool you know how to use is a hammer, after a while, everything looks like a nail. Putting it the other way around, the wider the variety of tactics an individual knows how to use well the, the more flexible, adaptable and economical the strategies he will be able to formulate. Just imagine what kind of a house a carpenter will design if he were to build it using only a hammer for a tool. Tactics Serve Strategy Tactics do not win an encounter. In the same way the possession of resources does not always guarantee its proper use. If it did, then there would be no more need for any planning in any aspect of life at all. Furthermore, each tactic while effective given a certain set of circumstances, is likely to be inappropriate under another scenario. Tactics are not absolute. By themselves, they will tend to neutralize and sometimes out do one another over time. Take the very simple childs game which everybody must have played at least once --- Paper-Scissors-Stone. Two Children would play by sticking out, at the count of three , a fist (stone), and open hand (Paper) , or two fingers (scissors). Scissors would win over paper (scissors cut paper); stone over scissors (stone breaks scissors); and paper over stone (paper covers stone). Although scissors wins over paper, it loses to stone. Yet, stone loses to paper. In the same way, each strength we possess has a corresponding weakness. A very clear example in the real world is tennis competitions at the world class level as noted by Lord Pennock it is fascinating that Borg always beats Connors and Connors always beats Lendl and Lendl beats McEnroe and McEnroe beats Borg.

A negotiator is then justified in using a particular tactic to the extent that it performs a specific function in his strategy. Any use of tactic outside of the strategy is a waste of resources, at the very least. It can also lead to irresponsible show of bravado, confusing the issue or exposing oneself to possibility of undesirable reactions. Tactics and Strategy a dual reality Tactics without strategy is a brute force. Strategy without tactics is impotence. One cannot live without the other. But together, they determine the outcome of a situation. An effective negotiator has the ability to manage difficulties and sacrifices brought about by the use of seemingly suicidal tactics. He is willing to go through these in order to press ahead and achieve the strategic objective whatever this may be. There may be times when it will be necessary to employ considerable recourses in order to take key points that might be holding up the unfolding of desired out come. One may, for example, have to operate a particular business at a loss for a short period of time in order to achieve tactical objectives that will allow the overall strategy to succeed. Or perhaps one may be required to move back one step away from the goal in order to be able to proceed two steps towards it. A person is considered a fool who would think that the only way to achieve a goal is for each action to bring him closer to it. And he is a greater fool who would always jump to exploit a disadvantage of the other party without analyzing it within the context of his overall strategy. Finally, strategy and tactics are therefore the means to achieve a goal. If the goal is not being realized by the use of a particular strategy and set of tactics, then they must be changed.