It doesn't sound like the book being reviewed answers my question. Are there such books? Is it just a matter of "doing" strategy, to know what it is and how to do it well (trial by fire). Or are there books I could read on the subject?
My two cents.
In business ( And straightly in the sense of business, because the context changes if you apply to War ). I would consider tactics as something that sit between Strategy and Execution. Strategy as direction, or vision and goal. Whether you should enter a specific market, or pursue certain market opportunities. Tactics as steps and moves to achieve that goal. Execution being the actual work.
That is speaking as someone who is annoyed by the media and VCs repetition of "Execution eats Strategy for Breakfast" in the past 10+ years. My hypothesis or theory is that because VCs are already sold to your goal or vision ( strategy ), they just want you to execute it.
The way you define strategy here “ Strategy as direction, or vision and goal.” is exactly what the linked article (and the book) says strategy is not. I.e. “Strategy is not your goals” and “Strategy is not a vision statement”.
So, assuming you know what you are talking about, thats an interesting juxtaposition. What are your thoughts on the article/book saying vision and goals are not Strategy? (Eg. why do you think it is?)
The article mentions it is not a vision statement or goal. Those are true in the example given. Your goal isn't MAU, revenue increase or time on app. Except this is such a low level vision that of course those are not right.
In an abstract division of Strategy and Execution, one can further divide Direction as higher level than Strategy, tactics before execution. So you have Direction > Strategy > Tactics > Execution. As you can see the middle part here is where the it is unclear. Most people only talk about Strategy and Execution, and I think we can, or should all agree if we had to put Direction and vision in the two, they will definitely belong to the Strategy part and not the Execution part.
Lets put an example. Tim Cook's Direction of Apple changed in 2014, in 2015 he announced Apple would be a Services Company, with the Strategy of Product as a Services and Doubling Services Revenue by 2020. That is a high level overview in case of iPhone sales stagnation. His job is to align the company as a whole in that direction.
Eddy Cue, in charge of Apple's Services will now have a direction of Doubling Services revenue, his strategy ( as it turns out ) was to bring in Apple TV+, Fitness from Apple Watch, and Apple Music. While pushing for additional increase in in every corner of Services Revenue. ( AppleCare, App Store etc )
Somewhere along the ling you will have managers, And their Direction will be to increase App Store revenue, Strategy will be to things like Apps Store Search Ads, tactics include forcing Sign up on Apps that were previously ignored or exempt etc etc.
At every level the word direction, strategy, tactics means different thing. And not everyone can have an high level overview.
The one thing I learned in twenty plus odd years in society, is that vision and direction is a very rare thing. Most people are very much lost in life. To the point I will say it is a natural born talent. You could give them all the same information. The same "Map". Some could only focus on the middle part, some could only read part of the map at one time. Some could read the whole map but still cant understand it. While some can see the faint hint of area beyond the map. Extrapolate information from and beyond the map. If you focus in a small part of the map, your Strategy will becomes what is listed in the article, MAU or revenue, short term interest. And the word strategy will change from where and how you view the map / situation.
Take a look at Intel, in terms of Strategic mistakes and execution failure in recent years. I commented on those in 2011 long before anyone thought Intel was doomed to fail. And now 98% of people think Intel is going to fail, I think Intel is going to succeed and be competitive within 4-5 years.
The reason why I hate the execution eats strategy for breakfast quote, is because the equation has always been success = Strategy x Execution. Execution has a large variables. It can be from 1 which is dysfunctional to a 100 like a start up. But execution will always be a positive integer. Strategy, despite the range of number may be less than 10, is the only thing in the equation that can have a negative number. You could execute perfectly at 100 but you will still be doomed to failure if your strategy has a negative number.
Some ( or nearly all )people tends disagree with this take. It was only in the past 3-4 years I found a rare video from Steve Jobs talking about execution and strategy when he retuned to Apple with the exact same take. People were saying Apple had execution problem in the 90s. When in fact they had a Strategy problem. And yet at the time no one see it as such.
Tactics are a set of concrete plans and techniques used to achieve each of the strategic goals, in order. “Add these features to the product to make it desirable in market A”. Or, “offer a high volume purchasing commitment to a supplier in order to reduce the cost of batteries”.
You would typically deploy very many tactics over a long time in order to achieve the strategic goals.
The main difference between strategy and tactics is that when (if!) you get to the end of your strategy, you’ve made it; you’ve achieved what you set out to do.
I've read the book and yes, it will answer your question. It shares the theory and does a great job of walking through cases to reinforce the point. Been a founder/CEO for 10 years and this book changed the way I think about strategy.
My favorite part:
Diagnosis - why are we in this mess (define the problem or challenge)?
Guiding policy - what method are we going to use address the challenge?
Coherent action - typical OKR stuff, what do people need to do in what time period?
In previous strat plans I did have some of these elements but this framework helped ensure I was consistently considering the right pieces and was thorough in my analysis.
The parts of strategy (for some definition of strategy) that are missing from tactics are (1) Diagnosing problems (2) Setting policy. Things like “How do we solve problems” or “How do we find problems” vs “What is the solution to this problem”.
Maybe something more pithy like: “Tactics are what you use to fight on the battlefield, strategy is what gets you there”?