What's the difference between the adjectives "strategic" and "tactical"?
I recently read this sentence:
It was a strategic move rather than a tactical one.
I have trouble interpreting it. Can someone help?
Tactics address immediate needs; strategy addresses long-term ones. Somtimes it is worth taking a loss in the short term (what would seem like bad tactics) for long-term strategic advantage.
The terms are used with regard to the military but are broader: business, games, financial planning, etc:
A chess player makes the strategic decision to sacrifice a rook in order to consolidate control over the center of the board and maintain a strong pawn structure (this example suggested in comments).
A business makes the tactical decision to hire temps for the current push or the strategic decision to hire and train permanent employees for the long term.
An investor makes the strategic decision to accept risk of short-term loss for possible gains because he doesn't need the money for another decade anyway.
And back to the military: a commander may sacrifice a unit (or put it at risk) to achieve a strategic goal of gaining territory.
The great chess grandmaster Savielly Tartakower had the best explanation of the difference that I have ever heard:
"Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do. Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do."
I can't improve on that. Not even a little.
A strategic move is generally a more important move that matters in the long term, while a tactical move is less important and matters in a shorter term.
Strategy comes from Greek στρᾰτηγός (stratêgos), "general", which comes from στρᾰτός (stratos), "army", and ἄγω (agô), "to lead". It is used for the kind of decisions a general makes, ones that matter on a large scale.
Tactics comes from Greek τακτικός (taktikos), "fit for arranging", which comes from τάκ-τω/τάττω/τάσσω (taktô/tattô/tassô), "to order, position". It concerns the arranging of troops on the battlefield.
Consider the famous Greek general Pyrrhus, who defeated the Roman legions several times around 280 BC. While he was victorious, he lost so many troops to the Romans that his army would never again be able to defeat the new Roman armies that eventually came, and he lost in the end. His short-lived victory was a strategic defeat: while tactically he achieved his objective of defeating the Romans at the time, he should probably have retreated and let them conquer a province or two. If you win a battle but thereby lose the war, you have achieved a Pyrrhic victory.
In business, these terms are often used metaphorically. But in many cases they are used very loosely, so as to become nearly synonymous. If used in opposition, strategy is usually more important and matters in the long run, while tactics are less important and matter on a smaller scale.
I always liked this expression, it's concise and gets the difference across:
Strategy tells you which hill to take. Tactics tells you how to take it.