Sometimes I don't see the big picture...

And when I do I end up costing myself time, money and opportunity. But I’m not alone…when visiting boards like this one I notice many others having the same problem. For the lack of any apparent strategy they fritter around with one project after another. You can tell there is no master plan involved because many of these projects are totally unrelated…there is a unifying theme tying the projects together. It leads me to believe that we’re much better ‘tacticians’ than we are ‘strategists’. I don’t think that comes as a shock to anyone reading this.

Let’s take a look at the difference between ‘strategy’ and ‘tactics’.

Here are non-military definitions:

Tactics-A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.

Strategy-An elaborate and systematic plan of action.

Just for the sake of comparison let’s look at the military definitions also:

Tactics-The military science that deals with SECURING OBJECTIVES SET BY STRATEGY, especially the technique of deploying and directing of troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy.

Strategy-The science of military command, or the science of PROJECTING campaigns and DIRECTING great military movements; generalship.

Still fuzzy? Let me give you a couple military examples.

At the beginning of the American Civil War, aging Union General Winfield Scott, put together a plan (named ‘Anaconda’) to damage the South’s ability to wage war. This plan (strategy) would call for a federal blockade of the entire Confederate coastline. Even today that would be an ambitious plan but in 1861, the possibility of doing something like this, given the then small size of the U.S. Navy, this goal was truly challenging…but Scott put the wheels in motion (tactics) to fulfill the plan. He knew it would take time…a great deal of it but it was a powerful way to strangle the South economically. Very little cotton and other products were able to be exported and very little in war material and supplies could be imported. The South’s ability to generate cash was severely curtailed. The passing of this strategy was not a ‘slam-dunk’…many people opposed it for various reasons but in the end it was one of the chief reasons why the North eventually won the war. Scott was strong enough not to deviate from his strategy even though his tactics probably had to be altered from time to time. The strategy was all-important…his tactics, much less so.

In the spring of 1864, U.S. Grant created a strategy to, in his mind, finish the war. He held a big view of things. He knew that to defeat the South that he had to think beyond the capabilities of one army. He needed to blend together the operations of four field armies spread over thousands of miles. Like Scott’s Anaconda plan, this was a monumental task for the time. Sometime just for grins look at the size of the eastern half of the country from Louisiana to the Atlantic Ocean. This is a huge landmass and couldn’t be controlled by just a single army, so Grant put together a plan utilizing four independent commands, each with specific goals. The commander of each army was relatively free to use whatever tactics where necessary to achieve the final goal. Things did not go smoothly. Armies failed in their short-term objectives and tactics needed to be changed. In May of 1864, the Army of the Potomac’s portion of the strategy required it to engage the Army of Northern Virginia under General Robert E. Lee. At first the Army of the Potomac used ‘sledge-hammer’ like blows to try to destroy Lee’s force. Grant kept urging forceful attacks but by the middle of June switched tactics that resulted in the siege of Lee’s army in Petersburg, Virginia and eventually the capture of the South’s main force. Now contrast this with what the Federal armies did in the spring of 1863…The Army of the Potomac was essentially operating on its own, without the benefit of any specific strategy other than ‘Trying to win the war’ which is like us saying our strategy is ‘Trying to make money’. Basically there was no strategy. The Union army skillfully maneuvered (even more so than what Grant would do the following year) against General Lee and his army, which resulted in a blood bath and retreat of the Union forces back to where they came. In 1864 Grant would do essentially the same thing but with the important difference that he continued to push Lee back (in the face of thousands of casualties) instead of retreating to craft a new set of tactics. Grant had a grand strategy in place where there was none in 1863. Now understand this, the Union tactics at the beginning of 1863 where possibly even better than what Grant would use in 1864 but the lack of overall strategy doomed the effort.

I ask you how often have your good ‘tactics’ been undermined by the lack of an overall ‘strategy’. Heck, mine have several times…maybe even beyond several. There have been times when I have leaped from project to project trying to find the one that ‘made money’ (my grand strategy). How foolish is that? I’m trying to reduce or eliminate this flaw. Why? Because it keeps me from achieving my ultimate goal (in simple terms) of having a successful direct marketing company. I’m sure there are many reading this that is suffering from the same thing. Like I, you’re a great ‘tactician’ but you’re a lousy ‘strategist’. Even the most business savvy people that visit and share on these boards are guilty of the same thing. They leap from project to project without the appearance of a common thread tying them together or they abandon one project for the next ‘project of the week’ at a moment’s notice.

You see its strategy that keeps us in line, which allows us to keep going when things are the most difficult. And no, this isn’t some sort of ‘rah-rah’ speech. Ben Suarez lost thousands before he found the right tactics that supported his strategy. So did Gary Halbert. So did Henry Ford. So did Edison. Without a clear strategy in mind, how can you even consider changing tactics? What do you measure those tactics against? Sales that week? This might be good in the short-term but it is no long-term answer. How many folks are willing to lose a few thousand dollars in order to accomplish their strategy? I’m willing to bet not many. But you know, looking back, I can see where my successful short tactics where much more meaningful when they supported my grand strategy as opposed to just sticking a few dollars in the bank. I read about people having some success with the tactics they are using but don’t seem to parlay that success into anything bigger…why not? My guess is a lack of overall strategy. Consequently my reverses where also less painful when a set of tactics, supported by a grand strategy, blew-up in my face as opposed to tactics that were not supporting a grand strategy.

Another way of telling if someone doesn’t have a strategy? They harp on the excuses. You know, “I’ve got kids and I can’t afford to do ‘x’ right now” or “I don’t have any time to pursue what I what”. I talk to these folks all the time…I read their comments on boards just like this. So instead of jumping into that next project, think about your strategy and how your tactics fit into that strategy.

I thank you for your time and input,

Mike Winicki