{"id":151488,"date":"2020-01-13T12:00:53","date_gmt":"2020-01-13T12:00:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=151488"},"modified":"2020-01-12T09:54:54","modified_gmt":"2020-01-12T09:54:54","slug":"activism-nonviolence-direct-action-strategy-tactics-organizing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2020\/01\/activism-nonviolence-direct-action-strategy-tactics-organizing\/","title":{"rendered":"Activism, Nonviolence, Direct Action: Strategy, Tactics, Organizing"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Difference between Tactics and Strategy<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Maine, USA 1988: Paperworker\u2019s strike run and corporate campaign. Photo: Robert Gumpert 1988<\/p><\/div>\n

8 Jan 2020 – <\/em>My friend and comrade Glenn Perusek enlisted me in 2016 to co-teach courses in the Building Trade Academy (BTA). The BTA is housed at Michigan State University; it serves the affiliates of the North America\u2019s Building Trades Unions (NABTU). We teach a series of four-day courses on basic organizing skills and planning. One of the issues for all trade unionists is understanding the difference between strategy and tactics. Glenn wrote this fine exposition on the differences between the two and their application to the work of organizing, particularly in the construction trades. Glenn\u2019s essay follows along with audio of the interview I did with Glenn on this topic in September 2019.<\/p>\n

The word \u201cstrategy\u201d is overused and is often confused with tactics. This is a problem not just for organized labor and progressive movements; it is also endemic in business and many other realms of organized activity. This seems odd, given that the literature on strategy and tactics is thousands of years old. This article draws on some of that classical literature, distinguishing strategy, tactics and longer-run planning, called \u201cgrand strategy\u201d in the military-political context and probably best termed \u201corganizational development\u201d in the union context. The article also develops key elements of strategic planning for labor\u2014the mobilization of resources; the calibration of ends to available means; and the concept of the \u201cindirect approach.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One of the most common mistakes of labor organizers is to confuse strategy and tactics\u2014typically, to elevate a particular tactic to the level of overall strategy. Many organizers in construction see stripping\u2014recruiting skilled, highly capable craftsmen from non-union contractors\u2014as key. Or, in attacking bad behavior of a non-union contractor, an organizer might discover a vulnerability over wage and hour violations. Or, in approaching a non-union contractor, developer or customer, an organizer might have had prior experience setting up an inflatable rat to draw negative public attention.<\/p>\n

As tactics, these are perfectly legitimate. The problem arises when one of these particular tactics is seen as a strategy\u2014which should involve myriad particular tactics. Elevating a particular tactic to the level of strategy constrains the field of play. When your toolbox of potential tactics has only one or a small number of alternatives, it makes planning easy\u2014because planning is non-existent. To say \u201cwe are organizing\u201d is equated with the limited repertoire.<\/p>\n

In getting away from this kind of thinking\u2014which elevates tactics to the level of strategy\u2014it is helpful to recognize that the English words are based on ancient Greek. 2,500 years ago, the\u00a0strat\u0113goi<\/em>\u00a0were the generals elected by the assembly in Athens. They were accountable to the assembly, but they were charged with overall planning, leadership and coordination of military operations on many fronts. Tactics comes from the Greek\u00a0taktik\u0113<\/em>, which has to do with drawing up troops for battle. Herodotus refers to the Athenian board of generals, the\u00a0strat\u0113goi<\/em>\u00a0(6.109.1), who have a dispute over a great matter of strategy\u2014whether to confront the Persians at Marathon. But once the decision was made and it was finally time to arrange troops for battle, a form of\u00a0taktik\u0113<\/em>\u00a0is the word used (6.111.1).[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

Taktik\u0113<\/em>\u00a0is also the origin of the word tactile: We can say that whenever you are engaging with your opponent, whenever you are touching them, as it were, you are employing a tactic. Strategy, in contrast, the activity of the generals, has to do with planning.<\/p>\n

Because so many labor organizers in North America are familiar with American football, that analogy can be helpful. Strategy refers to the game plan: A large number of plays, with variations (depending on choices made by one\u2019s opponent), and a large number of particular techniques\u2014blocking and tackling techniques, for instance, or the proper running of pass routes\u2014go into the plan. But the plan is distinct from particular tactics. The plan, the strategy, needs to weave hundreds or thousands of tactics and micro-techniques together in a coherent whole.<\/p>\n

A strategic plan needs to employ multiple tactical elements and be articulated over time. This is a good litmus test\u2014a single tactic (\u201cthe Rat\u201d) that does not change through time (\u201cWe\u2019re going to set up the rat until the cows come home\u2026\u201d) is not a strategy. Elevating a particular tactic to the level of strategy is analogous to reducing a game plan to a single play. If you are running off tackle on every play, you do not have a strategy.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

UAW strike at Sterling Radiator, MASS, 1981 – Photo Robert Gumpert 1981<\/p><\/div>\n

Tactics, Strategy\u2014and Grand Strategy (or Organizational Policy\/Development)<\/strong><\/p>\n

To stay with the football analogy, we distinguish game plan (strategy) from particular plays or techniques, which are up at the level of tactical engagement. Football people commonly retread the idea that they are focused \u201conly on this week,\u201d \u201conly on this game.\u201d They claim to have a one game at a time mentality. Coupled with the idea that each player and coach should focus \u201conly on doing his job,\u201d this is supposed to be a way to focus on the task at hand.<\/p>\n

But someone in the organization, of course, needs to be thinking beyond next Sunday\u2019s game. Someone needs to be thinking about the long-term health of the organization\u2014in developing new players, for instance.<\/p>\n

If strategy is the plan for a particular campaign, and tactics are the multiple ways of engaging with an opponent\u2014or articulating in practice the strategy\u2014there must also be an overarching organizational plan, a plan that transcends particular campaigns. For a sports team this might be a plan for a whole season or a multi-year program of building up a club. In American football, the head coach and his staff are responsible for game plans. It is typically a General Manager and his staff who are responsible for such things as player acquisition\u2014a matter of organizational development. For a firm, long-term organizational strategy supersedes a campaign around a particular product. (It is the difference between the quarterly bottom line and a five \u2013 or ten \u2013 year growth plan that involves a whole range of products, and the organizational infrastructure necessary to develop them). For a nation state, grand strategy would involve overarching war aims. Strategy entails applying tactics to win in a campaign or on a front. But grand strategy involves winning the entire war\u2014and creating a post-war world that is most advantageous. For an organization, grand strategy can be termed organizational policy or long-term planning for organizational development.<\/p>\n

When considering tactics to employ in a strategic campaign, organizers need to keep in mind the situation after the campaign. The objective, typically, is to sign up a contractor or employer\u2014we need to fight in a way that anticipates the settlement that we look forward to signing.<\/p>\n

Sufficient Resources and Multiple Elements<\/strong><\/p>\n

Organizers for union locals are often involved in all elements of planning and deployment of resources. That is, they are involved in tactical engagement (one-on-one discussions with potential recruits or subcontractors; production and distribution of flyers; testimony before a government body, etc.) but they can and should develop strategy for an organizing campaign. Additionally, they can become involved in longer-run planning, including the development of resources that can be built up for use in multiple campaigns.<\/p>\n

In the building trades, we employ a 4 x 4 planning tool.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 In addition to suggesting that a strategic plan be articulated through time, the 4 x 4 tool identifies four constituencies that a plan should address:<\/p>\n