Strategies set the context for public and private institutions. Tactics set the rules for actions taken within public and private institutions. So it is important to know who runs strategy and who runs tactics [see photo]?
If the strategy is to centralise command-and-control then more and more people become involved in "the collective" who create the narrative. Over time this leads to "one think" and this creates a "cult" at the top. This syndrome is reinforced by the fact that these people [staff/employees/workers] are paid much more than they are worth. They are remunerated in terms of their ability to fit-in rather than their competence. This means they focus on short term narratives not long term contexts. Here is the rub with all that... In circumstance where yesterday, today, and tomorrow is securely locked into "continuity" then this approach to strategy can and will survive. If you doubt that analysis please take a quick peek at what is happening all around the globe. If you do look closely you will note that tactics are as "loose-as-a-goose" which means they increasingly become sloppy, slow, and sleazy.
If the strategy is to decentralise command-and-control then fewer and fewer people become involved in the craft of context setting. Indeed most of the power, status, and effectiveness flows down to the bottom. Here is the rub with that development... Those who succeed with this decentralise model is naturally inventive, innovative, and risk-taking. However the perpetual flaw with this model is that the notions of "authority and responsibility" can become confused. Authority is based on rules: responsibility is based on trust. A lack of rules is fine until, and unless, responsibility fades and trust in the whole system begins to erode.
BUT...
Neither system described above is truly well suited to our times. Our times portend huge swings in change that will span culture, economics, governance, etc. In response we need a small strategy group that is purposefully linked to the clusters that drive timely tactics.
Richard.
Comments