戰略vs戰術：它們的區別是什麼？為什麼這很重要？

最新 08-17

文章來源於Farnamstreet最新的一篇文章。

我們常常會在無聊的公司會議上假裝認真地聽領導的未來規劃時，從領導的口中聽到兩個詞。我不確定領導們是否真的清楚這兩個詞的意思，員工是否也能明白戰略和戰術之間的關係？這篇文章將會詳細地位大家介紹戰略和戰術之間的區別，以及為什麼這很重要。

希望這篇文章在你個人的規劃以及企業經營和工作管理等方面能夠起到一點作用。謝謝大家花時間把下面的內容看完。

In order to do anything meaningful, you have to know where you are going.

要想做一些有意義的事，你必須得知道你的方向是什麼。

Strategy and tactics are two terms that get thrown around a lot, and are often used interchangeably in numerous contexts. But what exactly do they mean, what is the difference, and why is it important? In this article, we will look at the contrast between strategy and tactics, and the most effective ways to use each.

「戰略和戰術」這兩個術語，經常被人們拿來隨意的使用，而且很多時候被相互替代著用。但他們確切的意思是什麼？這兩個詞之間有什麼區別？為什麼知道這兩個詞的區別很很重要？這篇文章，我們將會比較「戰略和戰術」這兩個詞，並將談到使用這兩個詞的最有效的方式。

While strategy and tactics originated as military terminology, their use has spread to planning in many areas of life. Strategy is overarching plan or set of goals. Changing strategies is like trying to turn around an aircraft carrier—it can be done but not quickly. Tactics are the specific actions or steps you undertake to accomplish your strategy. For example, in a war, a nation』s strategy might be to win the hearts and minds of the opponent』s civilian population. To achieve this they could use tactics such as radio broadcasts or building hospitals. A personal strategy might be to get into a particular career, whereas your tactics might include choosing your educational path, seeking out a helpful mentor, or distinguishing yourself from the competition.

儘管戰略和戰術這兩個詞最初是作為軍事術語而使用，但對他們的使用已經擴展到生活的很多領域。「調整戰略」就如同調轉航空母艦的頭——雖能做到，但不會很快。戰術則是指具體的行動，或者實現戰略所採取的具體步驟。就比如說，在戰爭中，一個國家的戰略可能是贏得敵對國家人民的「民心」，而為了實現這個戰略，他們採取的戰術選擇可能是通過雷達廣播或者建設醫院。個人的戰略可能是實現某種具體的職業目標，而你採取的戰術可以是接受教育、尋求導師、或者在競爭中脫穎而出。

We might have strategies for anything from gaining political power or getting promoted, to building relationships and growing the audience of a blog. Whatever we are trying to do, we would do well to understand how strategy and tactics work, the distinction, and how we can fit the two together. Without a strategy we run the risk of ambling through life, uncertain and confused about if we are making progress towards what we want. Without tactics, we are destined for a lifetime of wishful thinking or chronic dissatisfaction. As Lawrence Freedman writes in Strategy: A History, 「Without a strategy, facing up to any problem or striving for any objective would be considered negligent. Certainly, no military campaign, company investment, or government initiative is likely to receive backing unless there is a strategy to evaluate…. There is a call for strategy every time the path to a given destination is not straightforward.」 And without tactics you become dependent on pure luck to implement your strategy.

我們可以針對任何事情制訂戰略，從實現政治權利到在職場升職，從建立感情關係到實現微信粉絲增長。無論我們想要做什麼，我們都要清楚地理解戰略和戰術如何從中起到作用，其間的區別，以及最終如何將二者進行有機地結合。若是沒有戰略，我們就面臨著在生活中漫無目的地漂泊的風險，對我們想要獲得的進步感到不確定和困惑。而若沒有戰術，我們將終生生活在一廂情願的想法與不滿的情緒之中。如同勞倫斯·弗里德曼在《戰略：一部歷史》中所言：「如果沒有戰略的話，那麼在任何問題面前或者為某種目標努力，其實都是一種漫無目的的行為。當然，除非是有可供評估的戰略，否則任何軍事行動、企業投資或者政府行為都不太可能得到支持」。每當抵達目標的道路不夠順利的時候，我們就需要及時調整戰略。還有，如果沒有戰術，那麼所謂的執行戰略行為就變成了純粹的依靠運氣的事情。

To achieve anything we need a view of both the micro and the macro, the forest and the trees—and how both perspectives slot together. Strategy and tactics are complementary. Neither works well without the other. Sun Tzu recognized this two and a half millennia ago when he stated, 「Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy are the noise before defeat.」 We need to take a long-term view and think ahead, while choosing short-term steps to take now for the sake of what we want later.

不管想要獲得什麼，我們都需要從宏觀和微觀兩個角度去看問題——做到既見樹木、又見森林，並且要清楚兩種視角如何交織著起作用。戰略和戰術彼此相輔相成。孫子在2500年前就意識到了這一點，他說：「策無略無以為恃,計無策無以為施」。所以，我們應該將眼光放得長遠，從長計議；然後為目標採取短期的行動步驟。

戰略和戰術的關係...

Any time we decide on a goal and invest resources in achieving it, we are strategizing. Freedman writes:

每當我們選擇一個目標，並決定為其投入資源，我們就是在制訂戰略。弗里德曼寫道：

One common contemporary definition describes it as being about maintaining a balance between ends, ways, and means; about identifying objectives; and about the resources and methods available for meeting such objectives. This balance requires not only finding out how to achieve desired ends but also adjusting ends so that realistic ways can be found to meet them by available means.

當代對此常見的定義是：在目標、方式和手段之間保持平衡；確定目標，然後明確實現目標所需要的資源和方法。這種平衡不但要求我們明確如何實現所期望的目標，而且還要及時地調整目標，以找到切實可行的方法，輔以可行的手段實現目標。

In The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, Edward N. Luttwak writes that strategy 「is not about moving armies over geography, as in board games. It encompasses the entire struggle of adversarial forces, which need not have a spatial dimension at all….」 When you think about winning a war, what does it mean to actually win? History is full of examples of wars that were 「won」 on paper, only to be restarted as soon as the adversary had time to regroup. So being precise in your goal, to encompass the entirety of what you want to achieve, is necessary to articulate a good strategy. It』s not about success in the moment, but success in the long term. It』s the difference between the end of WWI and WWII. World War I was about winning that war. World War II was about never fighting a war like that again. The strategies articulated and pursued by the Treaty of Versailles and the Marshall Plan were full of markedly different tactics.

在《羅馬帝國大戰略》這本書中，愛德華·魯特維克說道：「戰略並非像棋盤遊戲那樣使軍隊實現地理意義上的變化，戰略包含與敵對勢力的全部鬥爭，而且根本不是空間維度的」。當你想要在戰爭中獲勝，那麼獲勝的真實含義到底是什麼？上攻伐謀，歷史上有很多不戰而屈人之兵的戰例，只有在對手有時間進行內部重組的情況下，戰爭才會重新啟動。所以，要精確地設定目標，包含你想要達到的全部目標，這對明確好的戰略至關重要。我們要的不是短暫的成功，而是長期的成功。兩次世界大戰就有很大的不同，一戰的目標是贏得戰爭，而二戰的目標則是再也不要打這樣的戰爭。《凡爾賽條約》（一戰戰後的條約）和《馬歇爾計劃》（二戰結束美國的援歐計劃）所闡述和推行的戰略包含著明顯不同的額戰術上的考慮。

In Good Strategy, Bad Strategy, Richard Rumelt writes: 「The most basic idea of strategy is the application of strength against weakness. Or if you prefer, strength applied to the most promising opportunity…A good strategy doesn』t just draw on existing strength; it creates strength.」 Rumelt』s definition of strategy as creating strength is particularly important. You don』t deplete yourself as you execute your strategy. You choose tactics that reinforce and build strength as they are deployed. Back to winning hearts and minds – the tactics require up-front costs. But as they proceed, and as the strategy unfolds, strength and further support are gained by having the support of the local population. A good strategy makes you stronger.

理查德·魯梅爾特在《良策與庸策》寫道：「戰略最基本的思想是運用優勢對抗劣勢」。或者你如果你願意，那麼將優勢押注在最有前途的機會上。良策不但是整合現有優勢那麼簡答，而且還能夠創造性的製造優勢。魯梅爾特提出的創造性優勢的定義尤為重要。當你執行戰略的時候，不會因此榨乾自己。你選擇的戰術可以在部署和執行之時增加或者加強你的優勢。回到贏人心上，那麼戰術上就要預先付出代價。但隨著戰術的進一步推進以及戰略上的進一步展開，我們就會從當地人那裡獲得力量和後續的支持。良策使你更強大。

― 羅伯特·格林；《戰爭的33條法則》

戰略組成...

The strategic theorist Henry Mintzberg provides a useful approach to thinking about strategy in adversarial situations. According to Mintzberg, there are five key components or types:

戰略理論家亨利·明茨伯格為我們提供了在敵對狀況下思考戰略的有效方法。根絕明茨伯格的說法，戰略包括5個組成部分，或者說是5種類型。

Plan: A consciously chosen series of actions to achieve a goal, made in advance.

計劃：在行動之前，有意識地選擇一系列行動實現目標。

Ploy: A deliberate attempt to confuse, mislead or distract an opponent.

策略：故意迷惑、誤導和分散對手的注意力。

Pattern: A consistent, repeated series of actions that achieve the desired result.

形式：持續地重複相同的行動以實現想要的結果。

Position: A considered relationship between an entity (organization, army, individual etc) and its context.

位置：實體（組織、軍隊、個人）與其背景之間關係。

Perspective: A particular way of viewing the world, a mindset regarding actions that lead to a distinct way of behaving.

視角：審視世界的獨特方式，對導致不同行為方式的行動的態度。

Geoffrey P. Chamberlain offers a slightly different perspective on the components of strategy, useful when the strategy is more about a personal goal. He identifies seven parts:

傑弗里·張伯倫的對戰略組成的觀點略有不同，他的觀點對於個人目標的實現比較有幫助。他把戰略分成7個組成部分：

A strategy is used within a particular domain.

戰略在特定的領域使用。

A strategy has a single, well defined focus.

一個戰略只能有一個明確的重點。

A strategy lays out a path to be followed.

戰略要表明需要遵循的道路。

A strategy is made up of parts (tactics).

戰略由多個部分組成。

Each of a strategy』s parts pushes towards the defined focus.

戰術要朝著特定的中心推進。

A strategy recognises its sphere of influence.

明確戰略本身的影響範圍。

A strategy is either intentionally formed or emerges naturally.

戰略要麼是有意形成的，要麼是自然形成的。

According to Rumelt, a strategy must include 「premeditation, the anticipation of others』 behavior, and the purposeful design of coordinated actions. As a general rule, strategy is more important in situations where other parties have the potential to thwart or disrupt actions, or where our plans are at risk if we don』t take meaningful steps to achieve them. Good strategy requires us to both focus on a goal, and anticipate obstacles to reaching that goal. When we encounter obstacles, we may need to employ what Freedman calls 「deceits, ruses, feints, manoeuvres and a quicker wit」—our tactics.

根據魯梅爾特的說法，戰略必須包括「預謀，對他人行動的預判，以及針對行動調整的有目的的設計。」一般來說，戰略在下面這些情況下更為重要。其他各方進行阻撓和破壞的情況下或者在未採取有效行動而使計劃面臨危險的情況下。一個良好的戰略要求我們既要專註於目標，又要預判實現目標過程中可能的困難。當我們遇到苦難時，我們可能需要使用弗里德曼所說的，包括：「欺騙、佯裝、詭計、機敏」等戰術。

— 孫子《孫武兵法·九地篇》

關於戰術的一些討論...

Even the most elegant, well-planned strategy is useless if we do not take thoughtful steps to achieve it. While the overall goal remains stable, the steps we take to achieve it must be flexible enough to adjust to the short-term realities of our situation.

如果我們不謹慎地採取行動去實現，那麼即使最好的、計劃最完善的戰略也是沒有什麼用的。儘管整體的目標要保持不變，但我們採取的行動必須要靈活多變，這樣才能夠適應我們短期的現實情況。

The word 「tactic」 comes from the Ancient Greek 「taktikos,」 which loosely translates to 「the art of ordering or arranging.」 We now use the term to denote actions toward a goal. Tactics often center around the efficient use of available resources, whether money, people, time, ammunition, or materials. Tactics also tend to be shorter-term and more specific than strategies.

戰術這個詞「tactic」來源於古希臘語「taktikos」，大致可以理解為「指揮或籌劃的藝術」。而今我們用這個詞表示「以目標為核心的行動」。戰術通常以有效利用可用資源為核心，無論是財力、人力、物力還是時間。與戰略相比，戰術通常是更傾向於短期，且更為具體的安排。

Many tactics are timeless and have been used for centuries or even millennia. Military tactics such as ambushes, using prevailing weather, and divide-and-conquer have been around as long as people have fought each other. The same applies to tactics used by politicians and protesters. Successful tactics often include an 『implementation intention』—a specific trigger that signals when they should be used. Simply deciding what to do is rarely enough. We need an 「if this, then that」 plan for where, when and why. The short-term nature and flexibility of tactics allow us to pivot as needed, choosing the right ones for the situation, to achieve our larger, strategic goals.

很多戰術是不受時間限制的，並且已經沿用百年甚至千年之久。很多軍事戰術，比如，埋伏、利用天氣狀況以及分而治之等等戰術，在人類社會出現對抗之初就一直在使用。政客和抗議者使用的戰術也與之類似。成功的戰術一般包括「執行意向」——指的是當他們被採用之時所發出的信號。只是知道要做什麼是遠遠不行的。我們需要一個「如果...，那麼就...」這樣的計劃，解釋清楚時間、地點以及為什麼！戰術的短期性及靈活性的特點，使我們能夠根據我們根據需求及時調整，根據實際情況選擇正確戰術，以實現我們更為長遠的戰略性目標。

— 阿爾文·托夫勒

結語...

According to the skilled strategist Sun Tzu, strategy is about winning before the battle begins, while tactics are about striking at weakness. Both are ancient concepts that have come to be an essential part of numerous disciplines and offer endless new ways of thinking.

根據孫子的說法：「所謂戰略指的是勝於廟堂之上，不戰而屈人之兵；而戰術則是攻擊敵方弱點」。這兩個古老的概念現已成為很多學科的重要組成部分，並提供了無盡的新的思維方式。

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！