In praise of tactics

We look forward strategically but move forward tactically.

Napoleon Bonaparte: “I beat the enemy without so much intellect and without using Greek words.” (Painting by Claude Gautherot)

There are some people who might have better technique than me, and some may be fitter than me, but the main thing is tactics. With most players, tactics are missing. You can divide tactics into insight, trust, and daring.

Johan Cruyff

It’s time to speak up for tactics. Whether coping with the difficult encounters of everyday life, navigating the complexities of large organisations, or fighting a war, finding the appropriate tactics can make all the difference. We might complain of political leaders who are too tactical, concentrating on small matters while ignoring big issues, but when they are not tactical enough and continue to make poor calls, alienate potential supporters, raise expectations that cannot be met, jump from one untenable position to another, we certainly notice.  How often do political leaders - think Liz Truss - present their failures as residing not so much in their grand visions as in tactical missteps or the greater cunning of their enemies?

For entertainment we expect good tactics. In sport tactical tweaks can result in a breakthrough. This is why so much football punditry these days is taken up with discussions of the timing of substitutions to preparations for set plays. In action movies, including those about war, very little time is spent on strategy and much more watching our heroes find ways to survive harrowing situations, as they doggedly pursue their assignments. Movies such as Saving Private Ryan, the Hurt Locker, and 1917 involve one fraught tactical situation after another. In courtroom dramas we expect lawyers to trap unwary witness with artful cross-examination or win over an unpromising jury with their charm. As we read books and watch plays we learn about the tests to which human ingenuity, grit, wit, and bravery can be subjected. Strategy may be the more cerebral activity, requiring deep thought and deliberation, but tactics is about how humans engage with each other. We look forward strategically but move forward tactically.

Yet those seeking advice on how to take executive responsibilities at almost any level of an organisation will soon discover that being ‘tactical’ is a negative attribute. It suggests a person who is irretrievably short-term, neglecting the long-term, focused on immediate issues, and unable to see the big picture. Many organisations will have Vice-Presidents for Strategy (I was once one myself). I’m not aware of any with a Vice-President for Tactics. There are very few books devoted to tactics (here is a rare example), yet a multitude consider strategy. Even in the military field there is no Makers of Modern Tactics, to compare with the best-selling ‘Makers of Modern Strategy’, first published in 1943 and now in a third edition.

Research the topic on the internet and you will soon come across the words of the great Chinese sage Sun Tzu:

‘Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy are the noise before defeat.’

That really puts tactics in its place. Unfortunately, as I realised having used it in my book on the history of Strategy, this quote does not actually appear in any of the translations of Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Its provenance is unclear. But somebody appears to have made it up around 2000 and it was quickly embraced as the sort of thing  that Sun Tzu might have said. Even if it had been an authentic Sun Tzu quote that would not have made it true.  

My views on the relationship between strategy and tactics have evolved, and I’ll expound on them later in the post. First we need to consider why it is that tactics are treated with such condescension while strategy continues to be elevated as the essential attribute of any effective leader. This requires some history.