In response to my recent message about strategy, in which I said that every tactical decision has a strategy assumption built into it, I got this question from a fellow list member:
“
But one could also deploy random tactics, each based on its own reactionary rationale. What would the assumptions be in that scenario?
Maybe the assumption is that reaction is better than forethought?
Good question!
Here was my response:
“
Well unless the tactic is to do nothing, the most basic assumption is that the battle is worth waging in the first place. And if that’s the case then there’s some kind of “why” behind that even if you haven’t articulated it.
I guess same goes if you decide it’s not worth it.
Maybe the only non-strategy is to alternately do and don’t do on a whim.
~ ~ ~
Here’s the thing . . .
A strategy is simply a plan for achieving an ultimate goal.
You have an ultimate goal for your business, so you have some kind of strategy for achieving it, even if you haven’t said it out loud or put it on paper. If you didn’t have any plan you wouldn’t take any action, so you wouldn’t have a business.
There are all kinds of strategies.
But not all strategies are winning strategies.
If you wrote down the strategy assumptions built into every one of your day-to-day decisions, would it look like a winning strategy?
