The main manifestations of strategies
To understand the options for information strategies, we need to understand the concept of strategy in general. Strategic vision is a special art. On the one hand, this makes it possible to include a limited number of experts in the strategizing processes, since the strategy is characterized by both interdisciplinarity and systemic nature, which defines it as a special type of analytics.
Strategy as structuring the future.
Underestimation of the strategy is typical for all countries without exception. Indeed, even in the United States, at one time, D. Rumsfeld's report on the missile threat from the USSR stated that all intelligence resources were working to support the nearest targets. Meanwhile, real threat prevention requires work at the level of long-term goals. It was 1998, but since then it has been the strategic work that has not improved significantly, although it has undoubtedly reached a new level. If this happened in the United States, then sooner or later other players in the strategic space realized the need to increase attention to strategic thinking in both business and public administration.
A solution to the problem is possible only when it is considered in a broader context. Some meta-level allows you to combine not only short-term, but also long-term variants of contexts. But the forecast for 10-15-25 years ahead requires a change in the very format of thinking, and we are often not ready for this. The form of thinking within which we move does not (quite possibly) allow us to adequately carry out such operations. It is necessary to educate, produce a new type of thinking, a new formatting of its processes. Our thinking is very well oriented towards the past, and very poorly oriented towards the future. However, without knowledge of the future, without mastering the systematics of strategic thinking, it is no longer possible to function adequately in the modern world. This applies both to an individual, who may have far-reaching goals, as well as organizations, corporations and countries. In order to get to the "point" in the future, you need to find the appropriate "point" in the present and carry out a number of specific operations to transform the present into a specific future.
There are several situations in which the status of the strategy is the most important, where its neglect or lack of development leads to catastrophic consequences.
These are the following options:
1. A strategy is needed and implemented when it is opposed by someone else's strategy. Strategy 1 in this case opposes strategy 2.
Note. There is a dual management of the situation, on the one hand and on the other, and requires strategic intervention, taking into account the real and possible actions of the other side.
2. Strategy is important when there is interaction between different levels. For example, the information (public) level interacts with the political level, which, in the end, requires a response from the state level.
Note. Such inter-level interaction requires strategic decisions, since management can no longer be maintained at one of the levels.
3. The desired result is beyond the standard, natural possibilities. It is necessary to make a transition between the various stages, which can only be helped by strategy.
Note. In this case, a resource option is needed to overcome the gap or a modification of the resistance of the medium, which can also be considered as a resource.
The main argument in favor of strategy in both business and politics, as well as in military affairs, should be an axiom: when the strategy of player A collides against the tactics of player B, strategy always wins. At the same time, each individual "cell" has its own level (horizon) of vision of the future. Here again, the axiom applies: the winner is the one whose strategy is more long-term in nature. The Chinese say for a reason that you can sit by the river and wait for it to carry the corpse of your enemy. This is a clash of strategies of different levels of duration.
To. Gray, one of the leading Western experts on strategy theory, sees the difficulties of working in the field of strategy in such factors:
the essence of strategy, since strategy must be contained in time and applied to any context;
the variety of counteraction forces;
The strategy is planned for contexts that have not yet been implemented, they relate to a future that does not exist.
Revealing the expression of K. Clausewitz that everything is simple in strategy, but this does not mean that everything is easy. K. Gray formulates five arguments about this:
strategy is neither a policy nor an armed conflict, it is a bridge between them, therefore, neither military specialists nor political specialists are specialists in strategy;
the complexity of the strategy lies in the fact that each of its elements or industry affects other components; the essence of the strategy is unchanged over time, but any changes in technology, society, political ideas affect it; it is almost impossible to teach and train strategists, since these are experts in the use of the threat of force or for political purposes, but not those who can offer the necessary political forces or know how to fight like that; ■ since many components intersect in strategy, this area, unlike tactics, contains the potential for a large number of mistakes;
an essential counteraction to the implementation of the strategy is the desire, skill and interests of the enemy.
The strategy structures the future, thus making the optimal transition to it. Structuring the future can take place, for example, in the cognitive sphere, which creates such a direction as strategic frame analysis. Frames introduced into individual and mass consciousness act as filters, not missing information that does not correspond to them. When a frame and a fact collide, a person prefers frame information, rejecting the actual information as inadequate to match the frame information, changing the model of the world, as a result creates a world that satisfies its parameters.
Structuring of the future can take place in the direction of event analysis, when a chain of events is built, which leads to a specific goal. If frame analysis structures virtual reality, then event analysis structures real reality. But in reality, these approaches are useful and interesting because they contain two platforms at the same time - real and virtual, which allows you to make the transition to the future.
This can be done by keeping the future in the present in various ways. A business, for example, can implement this process through strategic planning. Society as a whole holds its future (as well as the present) due to ideology, it is located within the virtual space.
The strategy creates certain equivalences (interchangeability), which allows you to move towards the future in conditions of a lack of certain elements. For example, within the framework of military strategy, the possibility of such compensations arises: skill against quantity; surprise against quantity; a diversionary maneuver against the actions of the other side.
The strategy begins to replace the existing resource with what is needed at the moment, compensating for the lack of individual elements with others.
So, the strategy acts as a kind of "translator", which allows you to create the necessary set of real and virtual components leading to the desired goal.
Two options have recently gained active development: information and propaganda and financial influence.
The outreach option is aimed at different types of audiences with different goals. In modern conditions, in public thought, first of all in their own and neutral countries, it is necessary to create a sense of the justice of this war, the morality of the use of force.
At the same time, the enemy must receive a vivid and understandable picture of the meaninglessness of their actions.
The financial option of influence has also been tested more than once:
in Afghanistan, tribal leaders received a bribe of 50 thousand dollars for refusing resistance, and when they did not agree, rockets exploded at their house, and the amount of the bribe changed by forty thousand;
In Iraq, the sudden cessation of resistance was explained by the bribery of generals;
In Georgia, law enforcement agencies stopped supporting President B. Shevardnadze for a bribe.
This is again the interchangeability (compensation) of some actions by others, which in the case of Iraq was even calculated as an economical solution, since the cost of the missiles used was higher than the cost of a bribe.
We can build interaction with the environment (an active environment that prevents our actions in the form of, for example, aggressive opponents) in three directions. These may be "mistakes" of the environment, by which we will understand, of course, our mistake in the form of an insufficiently developed strategy. As a result of this "mistake" of the environment, our actions are seriously opposed. One of the reasons for such an error may be a misunderstanding of the opponent.
Another option for interacting with the environment is to fundamentally change the environment. Conventionally, this can be represented as the construction of a bridge or tunnel through an environment inaccessible to us. At the same time, we seem to expand the space of the possible, which is one of the main features of the strategy. If tactics stop in the available space, then strategy as working with the meta-level allows you to find fundamentally new spaces for solving problems.
In election technology, this is the appearance of a type of opponent advantageous for victory. This is how the "duel" between Boris Yeltsin and G. Zyuganov took place.
By the way, quite often the political struggle is presented as a struggle of the new and progressive with the old and obsolete. In this regard, the Communists are always formatted for the past, which generally facilitates a victorious struggle with their candidate. This is also a marketing strategy when a new product is changed to match an existing type of product that needs to be promoted in a certain market segment. A new product, as a rule, may not yet have "educated" needs for it. But it can also be a very long-term strategy, which is now called globalization. Within its framework, the strongest players receive the greatest benefits, since they are the ones who create these rules.
A strong player (for example, the United States) can generally set unstable strategies, since his resource allows him to beat everyone. Other countries spend most of their resources to maintain balance, while a strong player can spend it to achieve victory.
It is necessary to mention the third option. By the way, it is the most common in the field of public relations and reputation management. It is about transforming the object itself to overcome the environment in an optimal way. There is a well-known "technicality" in these words - an object, in order to fly, must be one, and which needs to swim underwater - another. The environment modifies our object every time, preserving the control module, but fundamentally modifying its protective properties.
In the case of an "error" of the environment, at the next stage we either transform the object itself, which is a frequent option, or transform the environment itself.
I. Stalin, for example, chose the latter option, thus proving to the population the need for complete obedience.
Interaction with the environment, especially one that tends to counteract movement, creates a lag effect, since decision-making increasingly begins in a situation that has a fundamentally new character.
What novelty factors are starting to appear and influence the decision-making process?
Suddenness. A person, as a rule, does not act well in new situations, so staff training is carried out in this direction, leading people to repeat actions rehearsed in advance, and not to develop solutions and actions. A prepared player is not afraid of the time pressure, since some of his options are already ready, worked out in a calm situation.
Counteraction. The presence of another player, another freedom, creates opposition, is an essential factor that, as a result, strengthens the dynamics of the developing situation. The presence of opposition is the norm, not the exception. This is what distinguishes the real situation from the model one.
Uncertainty. A person always acts in conditions of incomplete uncertainty, but in certain situations it is uncertainty that becomes the main component, which creates significant difficulties.
A person always strives to impose an existing situation on similar ones, from those that are in her arsenal.
The strategy should be based on overcoming these and other factors that have the opposite orientation. It is the multiplicity of factors, often directed in opposite directions, that is the main difficulty in developing a strategy.
D. J. Forrester stated quite categorically at the time: "The human mind is highly adapted to the analysis of the elementary forces and actions that make up the system, and is very effective at identifying the structure of a complex situation. But experience shows that our minds are not equipped to assess the dynamic consequences in cases where parts of the system interact with each other." The more complex the object, the worse we analyze it. In this case, the intuition that outstanding generals have always had can save you. At the same time, opposite actions begin to work, which, it would seem, do not have an effect, but they are "multi-pass" and give results in subsequent stages. That is why E. Luttwak spoke about the paradoxical logic of strategy, seeing its source in the clash of opposites: "The dynamic clash of opposing wills is a common source of this logic."
Examples can be given that reveal the "illogicality" of the first step, but they are quite logical in the second. In this case, it will be working for your opponent.
Strengthening the enemy. We have already mentioned the election of Boris Yeltsin, who needed a strong opponent in the person of G. Zyuganov. A similar reinforcement of the enemy occurs in real wars. Thus, S. Hussein was credited not only with cruelty, but also with possession of means of mass destruction, that is, the enemy was strengthened in the virtual space, special demonization was added to him. This should help ensure that everyone recognizes the war as just.
Support for the opponent's slogans. The appearance of Boris Yeltsin and A. Lebed in the elections was aimed at taking votes from the Communist Party, thereby segmenting the opponent. A similar situation was repeated in Russia with the Rodina bloc in the 2003 parliamentary elections. D. Morris once called this the triangle method, when the president rises above his sympathizers and rivals, gaining the right to use the ideas of both sides.
Strategy, strategic thinking, strategic management is an attempt to "break through" the veil that hides the future from us, deprives us of the opportunity to influence it, shape it in the right direction. The highlights here are the various "breakthrough" technologies that can be implemented in the business environment. At the same time, although the strategy is not generated by learning to a certain extent, it makes it possible to see a number of fundamental options on which a movement can be built. This is a potential strategy that is fundamentally different from the strategy that will actually be implemented.
Let's formulate some principles of such a potential strategy, which are generalized in nature.
The strategy expands the field of vision. The strategy differs in principle in that it expands the time frame of the interests and opportunities of the participants.
They begin to see the present through the prism of the future, which makes it possible to highlight other priorities in the present.
The strategy addresses the negative context. The strategy arises and is implemented if necessary to solve certain problems that have not been solved today. By the way, this leads to a multivariate strategy, which can solve problems with a number of possible steps, and not just one specific set.
Having a strategy strengthens the subject, but it is not an absolute solution to the problem. However, in any case, a subject with a strategy is stronger than a subject or an object without it.
The strategy activates counteraction to it. And this is understandable, since active actions will always encounter the same active opposition. The strategy activates not only one side, but also the opposite side.
The strategy is aimed at supporting and formatting the future of the environment.
The strategy sees opportunities to remedy the situation in the future. Therefore, it exploits the potential of the future in the present. All candidates in the elections emphasize one or another model of the future. Revolutions are trying to rely on their vision of the future ("peace to huts, war to palaces" in Russia in 1917 or "socialism with a human face" in the Prague Spring).
Strategy is not only and not so much planning, but also execution.
The best plans are "broken" when they come to reality. Reality is stronger than any strategy. Therefore, progress in it is possible only by focusing on the available parameters of reality.
Strategy, as the highest level of management, can compensate for a lack of resources or any other disadvantage, since it optimally allocates the available opportunities. The strategy must be adaptable.
Players of different levels have different types of options for strategic interests. On the one hand, it allows you to search and find your niches in the taxonomy of others. On the other hand, on the contrary, it severely restricts the right of others to certain resource options.
The strategy has a different horizon of space and time, which is possible only for a strong player. A weak player is "buried" under tactical tasks. And in principle, only a strong player can have serious strategic plan tasks. The tools and resources in this regard are secondary. If there are no tasks, then there will be no tools or resources. If there is a task, then there are always tools and resources for them. However, expanding horizons requires additional resource support, which, in turn, slows down the setting of goals at this level.
A strategic "train" can take a limited number of participants, and there is only one driver at all. Therefore, there is a constant struggle for the right to be such a participant.
The strategy is fundamental and interesting only when action and reaction are combined. Otherwise, there is no need for a strategy at all. That's what E. Luttwak thinks, talking about the bombing of Germany and Japan, when their air defense was no longer working: "It was still a war, but the logic of strategy was no longer applied, because the enemy's reaction, even his very existence as a conscious, living being, could not be taken into account."
The strategy is aimed at setting priorities, since resource support is only possible in a limited amount.
A certain set of priorities should ensure progress towards the chosen goal, possibly pulling other segments along with it.
The strategy is interesting and effective for anyone who can use it. It loses its meaning if an organization or country cannot be adequate to the modern world, which by its dynamics rejects attempts by weak players to take advantage of its trends. Only a strong player can fully "ride". There is a trend "A weak player can only "hide" behind the trend to try to take advantage of its "flow"." The strategy undoubtedly strengthens, but strengthens only those who are able to develop and implement it, despite the serious resistance of the environment. The strategy is aimed specifically at an aggressive environment.
It can be used only by those who are able to adequately assess the risks and act in the direction of the least resistance of the environment.
