The tactical and strategic discussion - again

As a preface: 

This is one of those posts I have held on to for a couple of months. Why? 

• First, I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to use some of the language I use here. Yes, I've used the language occasionally before, but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate with this topic. 
• Second, I wasn't sure what the reaction would be to the sentiment expressed. I truly do believe in what I'm saying here - but I also found myself second-guessing whether I should express myself. 

I decided, in the end, that it is important to state my true opinion, and to see what happens. 

So here we go: 

So I was sitting in a meeting today with several high-level people in information work, and as we went around the table, I heard several people talk about 'moving from tactical to strategic' work. 

Which is the same fucking theme everyone's been talking about for years. 

And I started to wonder - why is that? Why are we still talking about moving from tactical to more strategic work? Why haven't we moved? 

First, I want to recognize that there is no escape from the tactical. Daily life is tactical. Eating lunch is tactical. There are always going to be tactical things that we need to do, in our lives and in our work. Let's accept it.

But to build on that - if you're doing tactical work and complaining about not being 'strategic', it's because you're choosing to be tactical. You are continually putting yourself in that mode. 

I'm guilty of this just as much as anyone. 

Here's the thing. Being strategic is not inherently in the nature of who we are, as 'information professionals' or librarians. We will never be strategic due to the very way we typically define ourselves. We are transactional by our very nature. By our training. By the roles we accept. 

I would claim that we often intentionally back away from being strategic - from providing perspective, analysis, interpretation. We don't feel comfortable or right saying what we think. We're afraid of taking the leap and not sticking by the data. We feel most comfortable sticking by the data. 

So how do we get out of this conversation? What is the way forward? 

• Let's examine and understand our expertise. Let's own what we do, and then let's apply what we do and be willing to stand by our knowledge - not the data, but our knowledge and understanding of that data. 
• Let's stop having the 'tactical vs. strategic' conversation among ourselves. Please. 
• Let's try giving up our defensiveness about our profession. We either own what we do and do a good job of it and push it forward, or we don't, and the profession goes away naturally. 
• Let's think about this: what if our profession is a mindset and a skillset that can actually be applied in new, interesting and useful ways? What if we're actually intelligent people who can have a conversation with, say, a VP of Strategy or a team trying to forecast the future? What if we can create new information and new understanding? How awesome would that be? 
• Finally, let's stop thinking we're not strategic and go out there and be strategic. 

Gee, that wasn't so bad after all. 

Comments

[Scott Brown]

Jim, thank you for picking up the conversation. I agree completely with what you're saying. A few further thoughts on my post and your response:

I by no means intended to denigrate the value of tactical work. Strategic doesn't happen without tactical. Stuff doesn't get done without tactical work. Tactical work is the execution of strategy - and so I very strongly believe that tactical work is an essential part of strategy.

And there are times in all of our lives - professional and personal - where the focus is squarely and solely on tactical. That's a reality.

My post is more to explore my own thoughts around this conversation and to open it up in a different way. It's a reflection on the mindset that - ironically, and I think in a kind of unconscious way - thinks that tactical is not 'good enough' and not strategic in its own way. I think (and I'm working this out as I write) that what bothers me is the perception that we're not already doing something important and 'strategic' by doing what we do - which is work with information and make it VALUABLE to others. We do that in a variety of ways - from shelving books to working with very high-level people across our society.

What I'm arguing is that, as a profession, we have a really curious (in the sense of inquisitive) and unique perspective and set of skills that can be and are strategic in themselves. I think we need to think differently and stop lamenting and complaining to ourselves, essentially, that we're undervalued. I would say we're the ones undervaluing ourselves.

[Jim Tchobanoff]

Scott:

I think there are two issues here.

The first if for the librarian on the front line, i.e., the person who takes reference questions, does literature searches, receives document requests, etc. Here the issue is "how much risk am I willing to take?". For example, when a librarian does a literature search, there are at least 3 options for handling the output
1. preparing a bibliography, i.e., a list of the references found during the search
2. #1 + a brief summary of the findings and maybe picking out the "best" references
3. #2 + analyzing the search findings and recommending or suggesting a course of action for the client.

Any librarian with an MLS should be able to do #1 -- whether or not the output is "pretty".

#2 requires searching skills and some knowledge in addtion to "library school" in order to identify the "best" references + willingness and/or skill to make that choice.

#3 requires all of the skills for #2 + knowledge of the client and/or the parent organization + the willingness to take the risk of making that recommendation.

I think that not until front-line librarians are willing to add some skills to their skill set and are comfortable with taking risks, will be perceived as being "strategic".

The second aspect of this issue pertains to library managers or directors.

Here the manager/director has to be continually asking "Am I allocating library resources against the most important issues for my parent organiztion?" If the answer is yes, then the library will be perceived as "strategic". If the answer is "no", the perception will be "tactical". All in all, it's a balancing issue. For example, negotiating database or e-journal contracts is a tactical action. Ensuring that those tactical actions support or impact against the everyday or important issues of the parent organization is a strategic action.

These two aspects are even more of an issue in a small library organization where there may only be one or two people with an MLS. What's the balance between being efficient, i.e., transactional and "tactical" vs. effective, i.e., impactful, transformational and/or "strategic"?

Just my thoughts