When I started this blog I wrote to a popular VC blogger (looking for a plug) and told him that I wanted to cover the underdeveloped topic of strategy for startups. His response was an immediate blog post on why startups do not need a strategy (and no plug for SF). Bill Flagg has a good post up today on the difference between tactics and strategy and basically he advocates a focus on tactics.
In these difficult times I agree with Flagg that a focus on tactics is particularly important and profit oriented tactics are the priority. BUT--I disagree with everybody who frames the issue as a management choice between tactics and strategy. My reasoning is as follows:
- Tactics that are not consistent with a strategy are frequently a waste of resources (time, capital, people) especially in the medium term
- Certain tactics are typically an inherent part of a good strategy, such as constant product improvement and improved customer service
- If CEOs articulated strategies that were more customer focused and less focused on non-sense (exit strategy, valuation, etc.), the distinction between tactics and strategy would be less important.
- If CEOs articulated simpler strategies, there would be less of a tendency for staff to think that the strategy had been changed or to waste time trying to determine whether the strategy had changed (It always amazes me the number of times people think a tactical decision is a change in strategy)
- Disciplined senior management should be able to devote the appropriate amount of time to both strategy and tactics and not confuse everybody else with the dialogue
