Name: 戰術和戰略有什麼區別？ (What is the difference between tactics and strategy?)
Uploaded: 2024-11-17T04:31:17.000Z
Duration: 7 min 43 s

What is the difference between a tactic and a strategy?

G'day everyone, Lauren Kress, the Business Scientist here and welcome to another episode of The Cheat Sheets.

大家好，我是商業科學家勞倫-克雷斯（Lauren Kress），歡迎收看新一期的《小抄》。

In this series, I provide you with a template, a tool, checklist or tip to help you take action in your business, your career or your life.

在這個系列中，我將為你提供一個模板、一個工具、一份清單或提示，幫助你在事業、職業或生活中採取行動。

If that sounds like something that would be valuable to you, make sure you hit the subscribe button and a thumbs up on this video would be greatly appreciated too.

如果這聽起來對你有價值，請確保點擊訂閱按鈕，如果你對這段視頻豎起大拇指，我們也將不勝感激。

Okay, so in my last video, we talked about strategy in business.

好的，在上一個視頻中，我們談到了商業戰略。

In fact, we talked about the four types of strategy you need in your business.

事實上，我們討論過企業需要的四種戰略。

If you haven't had a chance to check that video out yet, it's gonna give you a more thorough understanding of strategy.

如果你還沒來得及看那段視頻，它會讓你對戰略有更透徹的瞭解。

So be sure to check that video out using the link in the description below.

是以，請務必使用下面描述中的鏈接查看該視頻。

In a nutshell, what we learned was that a strategy is an action plan, a high level action plan that provides the big picture overview for how we will achieve a specific long-term goal.

概括地說，我們學到的是，戰略是一項行動計劃，是一項高層次的行動計劃，它為我們如何實現特定的長期目標提供了全局性的概述。

I use the analogy of the strategy being like the roadmap for a trip you're going on, where you need to figure out where you are, point A, and where you're headed, where your final destination is, point B, and how you're going to get from point A to point B.

我把戰略比喻為旅行的路線圖，你需要弄清楚你在哪裡，A 點，你要去哪裡，你的最終目的地是哪裡，B 點，以及你如何從 A 點到達 B 點。

Our strategy needs to provide an overview of the key decisions we make about that trip, like what we need to bring, where we'll make pit stops, what risks we need to mitigate, and how long it will take to reach our destination.

我們的戰略需要概述我們對這次旅行所做的關鍵決定，比如我們需要帶什麼，在哪裡中途停留，我們需要降低哪些風險，以及到達目的地需要多長時間。

Our tactics, on the other hand, get more into the nitty-gritty details.

For instance, if in our strategy we said we need enough clothes for a three-day journey, our tactical decision-making would involve thinking through things like, well, how much is enough?

例如，如果我們在戰略中說，我們需要足夠的衣服進行三天的旅行，那麼我們的戰術決策就需要考慮這樣的問題：那麼，多少才算足夠呢？

Which clothes are appropriate for this trip?

And how will I store my clothes along the journey?

So whilst our strategy documents the high-level decisions we've made to take action on, the tactics are going to get into the details that prepare us for execution.

是以，雖然我們的戰略記錄了我們要採取行動的高層決策，但戰術將涉及細節，為我們的執行做好準備。

So the more detailed we are, the better prepared we are.

是以，我們做得越詳細，準備得就越充分。

And this is part of the answer to the question I posed at the end of my last video, what makes a good strategy?

這就是我在上一個視頻結尾提出的問題的部分答案，即怎樣才能制定一個好的戰略？

讓我們把這個問題再細分一下。

Let's think of it in terms of the ultimate outcomes of a strategy, i.e., what does a strategy ultimately need to achieve?

讓我們從戰略的最終結果來思考這個問題，即戰略最終需要實現什麼？

Well, firstly, it needs to help key stakeholders understand where we are and where we're going.

首先，它需要幫助主要利益相關者瞭解我們的現狀和未來。

If you're new to the concept of stakeholders, you can check out my video on stakeholders and stakeholder mapping using the link in the description below.

如果你對利益相關者的概念不甚瞭解，可以通過下面描述中的鏈接查看我關於利益相關者和利益相關者繪圖的視頻。

Secondly, it needs to help us anticipate what lies ahead so we can make informed decisions.

其次，它需要幫助我們預測未來，以便我們做出明智的決定。

That means it needs to be well-researched and account for different scenarios that could arise.

這意味著需要進行充分研究，並考慮到可能出現的各種情況。

Personally, I find that the scientific methodology provides the most useful framework here as it helps us to put our assumptions, research, and best guesses into a data-led context.

我個人認為，科學方法論在這裡提供了最有用的框架，因為它能幫助我們把假設、研究和最佳猜測放到以數據為主導的背景中。

And it's easy for others to look at and understand.

If you'd like to learn more about the scientific framework, check out my video on business science using the link in the description below.

如果您想了解有關科學框架的更多資訊，請使用下面描述中的鏈接查看我關於商業科學的視頻。

Thirdly, it needs to provide all the information that is required to develop the appropriate tactics.

第三，它需要提供製定適當戰術所需的所有資訊。

For instance, let's go back to our road trip analogy.

例如，讓我們回到公路旅行的比喻。

Let's say that at the strategic level, in our heads, we're assuming that we'll use a car to go on this road trip.

比方說，在戰略層面上，在我們的頭腦中，我們假設這次公路旅行將使用汽車。

But when we hand over our high-level action plan, there's no documentation of this.

但是，當我們遞交高層行動計劃時，卻沒有這方面的文件。

And instead, our tactician assumes that we're going by motorbike or by bus or even a hot air balloon.

相反，我們的戰術家卻假設我們要騎摩托車或坐公共汽車，甚至是熱氣球。

Quite quickly, instead of our tactics aligning with our strategy, they're going to diverge from one another.

很快，我們的戰術就會與我們的戰略背道而馳。

Now, in the real world, this isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as there's good communication.

現在，在現實世界中，只要有良好的溝通，這並不一定是壞事。

So when you have a tactician who can recognize gaps in a strategy, challenge assumptions, and provide innovative solutions, it can be incredibly valuable for the business.

是以，如果有一位戰術家能夠識別戰略中的漏洞、挑戰假設並提供創新的解決方案，那麼他對企業的價值就會令人難以置信。

But this is also an example of where the lines can get a bit blurry between what a strategic decision is and a tactical decision.

但這也是一個例子，說明戰略決策和戰術決策之間的界限可能有點模糊。

一個在哪裡結束，另一個在哪裡開始？

In the real world, the practical answer to this will often come down to things like the size of the company, how different roles are assigned, the preferences of the leadership team, and the strengths and weaknesses of individual employees.

在現實世界中，這個問題的實際答案往往取決於公司的規模、不同角色的分配方式、上司團隊的偏好以及員工個人的優缺點。

In these cases, it's a good idea to ask some questions to help get some clarity.

在這種情況下，最好提出一些問題來幫助澄清。

For instance, if you're in a particular strategy meeting and you're not sure what it's about, you could ask a question like, are we talking big picture strategy here or are we getting into the tactical nuts and bolts in this meeting?

例如，如果你正在參加某個戰略會議，但不確定會議的內容，你可以問這樣的問題：我們是在討論全局戰略，還是在討論戰術細節？

On the other hand, if you notice gaps in a strategy, you could ask a question to understand whether or not you're expected to fill in those gaps.

另一方面，如果你發現策略中存在漏洞，你可以提出一個問題，以瞭解是否希望你填補這些漏洞。

For instance, you could ask, was a plan discussed for how we would achieve X or did you want me to provide some options here?

例如，您可以問，我們是否討論過如何實現 X 的計劃，或者您是否希望我在這裡提供一些選擇？

I think it's worth pointing out that instead of saying something like,

我認為值得指出的是，與其這樣說，不如這樣做、

I noticed there's a gap in the information you provided, or there's an assumption here about how we're going to do X, we can couch things in a less confrontational and more collaborative way by asking a question.

我注意到你提供的資訊中存在漏洞，或者我們在如何做 X 的問題上存在假設，我們可以通過提問的方式來減少對抗，加強合作。

I may do a separate video on communication styles and company culture at a later date that will focus more on this.

我可能會在以後單獨製作一個關於溝通方式和公司文化的視頻，其中會更加關注這一點。

But for now, I just want to add that how you choose to approach this will also depend on things like the culture of your workplace or where in the world you work.

但現在，我只想補充一點，你選擇如何處理這個問題也取決於你工作場所的文化或你工作的地方。

In Australia, where I live, it's generally considered unappreciative, aggressive, or even rude to point out another person's oversight in a direct manner, like saying you didn't do X or you forgot to specify why.

在我居住的澳洲，直接指出別人的疏忽，比如說你沒有做 X，或者你忘了說明原因，通常會被認為是不領情、咄咄逼人，甚至是粗魯無禮的。

With all of that said, if you take one thing away from this video, it's what I'm going to say next.

說了這麼多，如果你能從這段視頻中得到一點啟發，那就是我接下來要說的話。

Instead of thinking about strategy and tactic as a binary this or that, it may be more appropriate to think of these two concepts along a decision-making spectrum.

與其把戰略和戰術看成是二元對立的，不如把這兩個概念看成是一個決策範圍。

On one end of the spectrum, we have the strategic decisions that inform our high-level action plan.

一端是戰略決策，為我們的高層行動計劃提供依據。

For example, how we've decided to increase face-to-face customer interaction by investing in experiential marketing over the next 12 months.

例如，我們決定在未來 12 個月內投資體驗式營銷，增加與客戶面對面的互動。

On the other side of the spectrum, we have the operational decisions.

另一方面，我們還有營運決策。

These are the decisions we make day-to-day.

這些就是我們每天要做的決定。

For example, how a store manager advises a store clerk to help them deal with a customer complaint.

例如，店長如何建議店員幫助他們處理顧客投訴。

Along this spectrum between these two lie the tactical decisions.

在這兩者之間，就是戰術決策。

On one side towards the strategic end, these tactical decisions start to look closer and closer to strategic ones.

從戰略的角度來看，這些戰術決策開始越來越接近於戰略決策。

For instance, something like engage an agency to develop experiential marketing campaign sits more up on this end.

例如，聘請代理機構開展體驗式營銷活動就屬於這一端。

Conversely, another tactical decision may be closer to the operational end, like head of sales to provide monthly conflict resolution workshop to customer service team.

相反，另一種戰術決策可能更接近於操作端，比如銷售主管每月為客戶服務團隊舉辦一次衝突解決研討會。

If you're anything like me, you may find yourself getting a bit caught up in the theory of how to categorize a particular decision.

如果你和我一樣，可能會發現自己有點沉迷於如何對某個決定進行分類的理論。

But honestly, the most important thing in my opinion is that all the decisions that need to be made along the spectrum are well-researched, thought through, documented, and communicated.

但老實說，我認為最重要的是，所有需要做出的決定都要經過充分的研究、思考、記錄和溝通。

In my next video, we're gonna talk more about the decisions that get made at the other end of the spectrum, the operational end, including the common problems that arise for business owners and how to overcome them.

在下一個視頻中，我們將更多地討論在另一端（即營運端）做出的決策，包括企業主常見的問題以及如何克服這些問題。

In the meantime, if you found this video useful, please remember to give it a thumbs up.

同時，如果您覺得這段視頻有用，請記得豎起大拇指。

 And if you're looking for resources to help you understand more about what we discussed today, check out the description below.

如果您正在尋找資源，以幫助您進一步瞭解我們今天討論的內容，請查看下面的說明。