PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The difference noted in the headline is one I followed for a number of years as a partner in a lobbying and public relations business in Oregon (though we also had offices in Washington, D.C.)

It is this:

A strategic focus is looking at the big picture, then designing tactics to fit that focus.

Too often, I saw lobbyists focus on routine tactics as a way to achieve desired ends. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn’t.

But a focus on strategy would have been better.

Here is the dictionary definition of the two words:

• Strategy: A plan, method or series of maneuvers for obtaining a specific goal or result.
• Tactics: Any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.

There is at least a subtle difference between the two, but one I think is important. It is that strategy is the bigger word, one that doesn’t just focus on activities, but that emphasizes goals and aspirations. It was what motivated us to call our firm, CFM Strategic Communications (CFM), when the time came several years ago to recognize that one of our partners was going to retire and we needed a new name.

An example or two from my role as a lobbyist may help to underline the difference between strategies and tactics.

1. Deepening the Columbia River Channel on behalf of the Port of Portland (a CFM client)

Our strategy here rested on the theory – not to mention the reality – that the Port of Portland served the entire region, not just Portland. Our work also rested on conveying a perception – a true one, by the way – that deepening the channel would serve as an economic benefit for the entire region as deeper-draft ships could ply their way up and down the Columbia River.

Our tactics were designed to cement that strategic focus in the minds of legislators who eventually would have to vote to make the channel deepening money available over multiple biennia. In one case, we produced a list showing how businesses in all of Oregon’s 36 counties used the Port of Portland and would benefit from increasing ship traffic – and we often called the Port of Portland, the Port of Oregon, if not the Port of the Region.

We also produced statistics that showed the potential economic benefit for the region beyond Oregon.

We started with a strategy, aiming at the big picture, then built the individual, daily tactics to serve that strategy. It was not just about the appropriation; it was conveying a big-picture rationale for the appropriation. The result was that legislators approved the allocation.

2. Supporting continued investments in Medicaid for low income Oregonians on behalf of Providence Health and Services (CFM’s long-standing client)

Here, we set out to describe Medicaid, the joint federal-state program, as a key feature of Oregon’s safety net for low-income Oregonians, many of them single mothers with young children.

To design tactics to serve the strategy, we developed a variety of communications materials to convey the reality that physicians and other medical personnel supported continued Medicaid investments. We also designed materials to make the funding case on behalf of actual patients who agreed to allow us to use photos and to tell their personal stories.

It was not just – appropriate the money. It was developing a strategic rationale for the appropriation. Again, the tactics served the strategy, not the reverse. And the result was success – the appropriation was approved.

All of this reminds me of the times when I have been asked to appear before a Willamette University graduate class where I often described the differences between strategy and tactics. My impression was that the class members accepted the difference.

I hope they did and that the differences between the two will help them succeed in their chosen fields, just as the differences have helped me succeed in mine over the years.