Policy, Strategy, and Tactics

A. What is policy?

How states decide to use their power is a matter of policy. Will the state expend its financial, personnel, and natural resources on securing a contested border with a neighboring country? Will it build a military with primarily defensive or offensive capabilities? Will it use its wealth to provide a social safety net? Will it restrict journalists' or citizens’ speech or expression? These are all policy decisions. Because public diplomacy’s primary goal is to advance U.S. foreign policy goals and priorities, it is critical to understand the definition of policy and its relationship to public diplomacy. This section uses the complex topic of immigration to explore the nuances of the many uses of the word policy as it relates to public diplomacy.

Policy may be issued formally (e.g., in an Executive Order, the FAM/FAH, ALDAC cables, or a speech by the President or Secretary) or informally (e.g., in verbal guidance, in a press conference). Policy may operate on a grand scale (e.g., U.S. trade policy) or quite narrowly (e.g., electronic device policies at an American Center). PD practitioners must be aware of policy at all times as they work.

Ultimately, policy is an authoritative direction or course of action adopted to change behavior or achieve a desired outcome or end state. A policymaker is someone who can issue authoritative guidance or direct action. Functionally, policies set guardrails or limits. At the highest level, policy guidance guides thinking and directs energy and action toward a certain outcome. A policymaker is someone who can issue authoritative guidance or direct action. Policy can affect many different aspects of a given topic or issue, and may be more or less directive depending on the scope, level, and authority of the policy and the policymaker. High level Policy (sometimes called “big P” policy), such as that issued by the President or high ranking government officials, may be quite broad. For example, this is the kind of Policy that is meant by “the Administration’s Climate Policy” or “Trade Policy.” Policy at this level offers broad principles for implementation and action.

High-level vs. small-scale policy

The following statements are possible high-level (big P) Policies on immigration:

• The United States is a country of immigrants; the United States welcomes immigrants.
• The United States seeks to restrict immigration because of security concerns.
• The United States seeks to regulate immigration to enable the state to open or restrict the number of immigrants depending on domestic circumstances.

Policy can also be issued on a smaller scale (sometimes called “little p” policy), and these policies offer more concrete limits to action. Within a broad policy framework, smaller policies operate to affect day-to-day actions. Laws, rules, regulations, and traditions all operate as policy, but these are generally not what is meant by achieving policy outcomes or advancing policy priorities. The interaction works in two ways. In some cases, little p policies can constrain big P Policy implementation. For instance, an existing law may have to be repealed to fully achieve the goals of a big P policy pronouncement. The issuance of big P policy guidance also affects what kinds of little p policies can be implemented; for example, with the cover of a big P policy pronouncement, a municipality may put in place a little p policy that goes against another existing regulation.

While “big P” Policy statements set guidance or direction, “little p” policies set out rules and specific guidelines. Little p policies are set through a variety of processes and change accordingly, but they constrain action in different ways than “big P” policy. PD practitioners may be called on to implement or promote little p policy requirements and work within their constraints to advance big P policy priorities. On the topic of immigration, “little p” policy requirements might take the following shape:

• Rules regarding family separation and detention at the border
• Numbers of specific visa types available
• The rules for participation in the diversity visa lottery

Policies can (and do) change. Policy may shift when a new administration takes office, when the global economic outlook changes, as alliances shift, or in response to specific events. These may be gradual and evolutionary, or rapid and reactive. Smaller policies may change in response to a shift in Big P Policy, to pressure from those who are affected by the Policy, to external influence, or to other factors. Understanding the policy-making environment and processes in the United States is important for PD. It allows them to understand how both Policy and policies are made, shaped, and implemented. It is equally important for PD practitioners to understand the policy-making environment and processes of the country they are working in, so they can determine how best to employ the tools of public diplomacy to shape this environment and affect policy decisions.

PD practitioners and policy implementation

As an example of how PD practitioners might use this understanding of high level (big P) policy and small (little p) policy in the United States and their host country as they work within their section or mission, we continue with the complex topic of immigration.

In this example, PD sections may be directly involved in communicating the broad policy aim (which may change depending on the administration). In a specific context, the PD section may be particularly interested in how broad U.S. immigration policy affects the number of foreign students who apply, are accepted, and come to study in the United States. If one policy goal is to increase the number of foreign students in the United States studying Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) subjects, then a PD section in a country that sends many students abroad may have an important role to play. In a different region of the world, the PD section may want to partner with interagency colleagues on programs and messages aimed at reducing irregular migration to the United States and encouraging people to use legal pathways to migrate to the United States. In these cases, PD practitioners are not necessarily policymakers, but they may influence policy discussions, and they are responsible for critical initiatives, activities, programs, and campaigns that influence the achievement of a policy objective.

Each country will have a broad policy goal it is trying to achieve. If those goals are aligned with U.S. goals, and the foreign public is also aligned with those goals, then achieving a desired policy outcome may be relatively simple or require little attention from the PD section. For example, in a country where visas are not required to visit the United States, the number of people desiring to emigrate matches the current pathways, and processes are perceived as fair and transparent, the public diplomacy section may not spend its scarce resources on the topic of immigration at all, even though it is a stated national policy priority. However, if less alignment exists between the positions of the United States, the foreign state, and the foreign public’s goals, and irregular migration is a topic of concern to many groups with competing interests and priorities, the public diplomacy section may prioritize the issue, working with other parts of the mission, to achieve better alignment.

PD practitioners must regularly participate in conversations about policy and policymaking. To go back to the immigration example and students studying STEM subjects in U.S. universities, restrictive visa policies make it difficult for students and recent graduates to stay or work in the United States. A PD professional might point out that these policies could be a deterrent for students deciding where to study. Thus, in the policymaking discussion, PD professionals can help policymakers understand the linkages between public attitudes and behaviors, and the formulation and implementation of U.S. policy.

To formulate and execute more effective policy, foreign affairs agencies need to understand international, regional, and local context. One way public diplomacy informs policy is by helping decision makers understand how foreign publics shape particular policy-making and information environments. Public diplomacy, in its role on the country team, is most effective when it presents these insights early in the policy-making process. When decision makers lack crucial understanding of the context in which they are seeking policy solutions, they risk not only ineffectiveness but also unintended consequences that undermine the intended policy.

Public diplomacy professionals are instrumental in helping identify the potential consequences — intended and unintended, direct and indirect, and including second- and third-order effects — of policy decisions. For example, PD practitioners with extensive contextual knowledge and in-country networks may provide a more nuanced perspective on foreign publics’ responses to military action, a new trade agreement, or a new immigration policy. Regular reporting and data on attitudes, trends, and developments among key foreign audiences are essential in formulating desired policy outcomes and planning to achieve them.

When PD practitioners are called on to implement policy, their role is different. As high level policy changes, strategies and plans must also change, but how much a strategy or plan changes will depend on the level of the policy change. That is, a change in the resources available may have a smaller effect on an existing strategy or plans than would a
large-scale reorientation in goals and objectives. PD practitioners who are planning and implementing policy are responsible for making these adjustments accordingly. When a policy change calls for strategic adjustment, the team should work with others in the mission to adjust mission-wide goals, perhaps even the ICS itself. When policy priorities shift PD priorities, perhaps the PD section must reassess its PDIP and look at its budget and staff time allocation. And at the lowest levels, practitioners may have to make immediate changes in programs or messages to respond to immediate policy changes.

B. What is strategy?

The English word strategy derives from the ancient Greek word strategos, meaning “the art of the general.” Historically, the strategist had to think in time and space in an effort to connect resources with capabilities and objectives, issue guidance to subordinates, and develop an idea about how best to achieve a political objective. We have now come to a more expansive view of “strategy.” It is no longer solely the domain of a military commander or war; strategic thinking is required by all who work in a resource-constrained environment to solve complex problems.

Defining strategy has become a cottage industry in and of itself, and the word’s definitions have broadened, so uses of the word “strategy” are often vague and nebulous. But definitions mark boundaries and delineate roles and responsibilities for strategy and related concepts. Several definitions from various sources and sectors are listed here. Although there are distinctions among them, they coalesce around some key ideas, which are explored in the next section.

• “How do we get from where we are to where we want to be, without being struck by disaster along the way?”32
• “In short, strategy is a choice. More specifically, strategy is an integrated set of choices that uniquely positions the firm in its industry so as to create sustainable advantage and superior value relative to the competition.”33
• Strategy is the “alignment of ends (aims, objectives), ways (concepts or methods), and means (resources)—informed by [an assessment of] risk.”34
• “Strategy is the continuous process of matching ends, ways, and means to accomplish desired goals within acceptable levels of risk.”35
• “Strategy is a profoundly pragmatic business: it is about doing things, about applying means to ends.”36
• “Essentially strategy is a dialectical relationship, or the dialogue, between desire and possibility. At the core of strategy is inevitably the problem of whether desire or possibility comes first.… Desire must be grounded in possibility; possibility clearly requires an idea in the first place which informs any analysis of possibility.” 37

Making choices: Priorities, competition, and friction

In the broadest possible sense, strategy is about making choices, solving problems, establishing priorities, and managing risks and consequences. Three key ideas emerge from analysis of the definitions above.

First, strategy requires prioritization. When resources are (or seem) unlimited, strategy and planning seem to be simple: few choices must be made and few programs must be cut, so the answer can always be more. In the real world, though, resources—including staff expertise, staff time, calendar time, money, and materials—are always finite. The answer to every PD challenge or problem cannot simply be to do “more”—more programming, more speakers, more exchanges, more social media posts, more events. A full event calendar or agenda provides an illusion of productivity when, in fact, it is more often an impediment to (or failure of) effective decision-making. Strategy must, from the beginning, include serious consideration of limited resources.

Second, strategy is competitive. The need for strategy arises in response to external forces, often adversarial, or at least competitive. For public diplomacy, the competition is not only from other states or governments, but from a host of voices and ideas that are vying for people’s attention. Sometimes these ideas run counter to U.S. foreign policy objectives, and at other times, they merely distract. Developing a strategy for public engagement requires responding to other actors in an adaptive way, rather than just charting a course and sticking to it. The response does not have to be direct, but a strategy that does not anticipate, account for, and respond to competition or opposition is bound to fail.

Third, strategy must manage friction internally. Strategy is difficult, in part, because the world (especially when it involves humans) is unpredictable and things do not always go according to plan. Just as strategy must be adaptive to remain competitive, it must also adapt in the face of friction—those things that simply make the work more difficult. For public diplomacy practitioners, internal friction may be caused by weak infrastructure and spotty internet access, hiring freezes and limits on overtime pay, flatlined or shrinking budgets, events in the United States that are difficult to explain or talk about, or policies that change from administration to administration.

If there is no friction, obstacle, or challenge blocking an actor from meeting their goal, there is no requirement for strategy. Strategy must account for external factors as well as risk inherent in any resource-constrained, competitive, or adversarial environment.

All of the definitions above explicitly or implicitly identify strategy as involving some relationship between ends (goals), ways (methods and actions), and means (resources). The simplicity of an ends-ways-means (EWM) formulation makes it a reasonable starting point for discussions about strategy, although it is rarely a sufficient end point. At a minimum, a strategy must articulate how taking specific actions (ways) will work to accomplish stated goals, aims, or objectives (ends) by using available tools and resources (means). Sophisticated strategic thinking also integrates assessments of risk, the adversary, and the environment, that go beyond a simple EWM framework.

In an EWM formulation, none of the three categories is static. The desired ends may change as circumstances on the ground or in the political sphere change; when ends are identified and articulated, they provide a beacon for strategists. Means, likewise, are never permanently set. Once resources are expended, they cannot be used again. Furthermore, the level or type of resources allocated to a particular strategic problem may change as priorities change. As noted in the last definition above, changing ends and means are indicative of the inter-related nature of strategy—as one part of the EWM formula changes, other parts must follow suit, or the strategy will quickly be out of alignment.

Strategy proposes a causal story or theory about change; it makes a claim about how using resources and taking specific actions will achieve a desired outcome. Ends and means are usually intuitive enough—what is it you want to do (goals and objectives) and what are the resources (material and nonmaterial) that you have to accomplish the goal? But strategic ways can be murkier, both in concept and practice. Here it is helpful to break the concept down further into two component parts.

1. The first part asks us to think of ways as things that can be done, or actions that can be taken. Articulating ways explains how resources will be used.
2. The second part then asks this question: why will employing these resources in this manner lead to the fulfillment of this objective? What is the logic that underpins the strategy?

Examining various approaches to strategy formulation enables us to see many ways that ends, ways, and means can be considered together to achieve strategic alignment. You can find examples to walk through this logical connection in Appendix A.

C. What are tactics?

Tactics are individual actions taken to achieve strategic objectives. In public diplomacy, tactics are specific engagements with foreign public audiences that include listening, direct engagement, engagement through intermediaries, people-to-people connections, institutional partnerships, broadcasting, social media, and information access. Each of these tools is a means to understand, inform, and influence the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of foreign public audiences. These tools vary by the type and term of the intended impact and by the breadth of the priority audience. The tactical approach best suited to one context may not work in a different environment or to reach a different audience. For instance, the preferred communication channels used to promote LGBTQI+ rights for high school students will be different than the methods used for their parents.
Nevertheless, all these interventions work to advance the mission of public diplomacy in efforts to advance U.S. foreign policy and national interests.

PD professionals must be expert tacticians, while strategically linking their individual engagements and activities to achieve defined objectives. Tactical and technical proficiencies are best harnessed in a logically sound, intellectually coherent, and clearly articulated strategic framework. Excellent strategic planning can still fail to achieve goals if tactical interventions are poorly planned and executed. Planning and implementing successful and strategically meaningful tactical engagements requires local knowledge and technical expertise. Developing this expertise takes many years, significant practice, and willingness to learn from engagements that had different outcomes than originally expected. For an in-depth discussion of the application of this concept, refer to PD Foundations, "PD in Practice", Section IV. Detailed Planning—The Logic Model

D. How are policy, strategy, and tactics related?

By selecting and using the most appropriate tools for engaging specific audiences and advancing U.S. foreign policy objectives, PD practitioners work with other sections in a mission to build coherent plans to achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the Integrated Country Strategy (ICS). Public Affairs Officers (PAOs) then lead PD sections to build initiatives and activities to generate both immediate returns and longer-term effects toward specific objectives. All PD practitioners are involved in the difficult and important work of translating U.S. foreign policy and strategic aims from ambition to action; this means they must think and work strategically.

For the most part, the design, planning, and implementation of specific PD initiatives and activities are tactical, but the diligent PAO and PD section will constantly be thinking in strategic terms. In fact, one of the greatest challenges for organizations is translating tactical success into lasting strategic momentum, let alone something that we might call strategic success or achievement. Leaders and practitioners assure politicians and the American people, sometimes for decades, that “we” are making “progress” in a place where significant U.S. diplomatic, development, and defense resources are being employed. But often there is no end in sight, no clear metric for withdrawing or changing the use of these resources, so interventions linger and languish. Successfully linking tactical programs to strategic aims, and figuring out how to say no to popular or historically beloved programs that do not clearly contribute to strategic aims, is among the most difficult undertakings for a PAO and their PD section. If our strategic thinking and planning are to be sound, we must honestly evaluate and assess whether any progress toward a desired goal or outcome is being made. The popularity of a program may not be related to whether it yields policy results, so its value should be scrutinized. Although the combined effects of tactical successes can combine to contribute to achieving strategic outcomes, it does not follow that multiple tactical successes alone will necessarily yield positive strategic outcomes.

With a clearly communicated and regularly updated strategy, the campaign becomes more resilient, even to small failures. To be effective, tactical successes must be tied together in support of larger strategic goals. A series of interventions (activities, programs, projects, messages, etc.) tied together in support of strategic aims allows for greater risk-taking and variation in outcomes. One tactical failure will not necessarily derail the strategic aims; but, with reflection and purposeful refinement, may allow for adaptation and iterative progress toward long-term goals and objectives.