Strategy and Tactics
Brazil
Brazilian leaders provide general direction, but the how is often adjusted based on circumstances and relationships. While strategic goals are set, tactical execution is influenced by adaptability and informal decision-making.
China
China follows a hierarchical approach where leaders set the overall strategy and provide clear guidance on how to implement it. The what and the how are closely linked. Tactical decisions are expected to align strictly with leadership’s vision.
France
France values intellectual debate in leadership. Leaders define strategic direction but expect subordinates to challenge, refine, and execute with a degree of independence. While the what is prioritized, the how is often subject to discussion and adjustment.
Germany
Germans – those leading as well as those being led – prefer generally formulated, mission oriented tasks. The task addresses more the what and less the how. Responsibility for the how lies with the implementer on the tactical level. Patterns
India
Indian leaders provide broad strategic direction, but the how is shaped by evolving circumstances, relationships, and available resources. Tactical decisions may require frequent adjustments based on situational needs.
Italy
Italian leaders outline clear goals, but tactical decisions are often made collaboratively. The how may evolve through discussion and negotiation rather than rigid adherence to initial instructions.
Japan
Japanese leadership defines the overall strategy, and tactical execution is carefully planned with group input. While implementers have responsibility for the how, alignment with the leader’s vision is expected.
Mexico
Mexicans value hierarchical leadership with a personal touch. Leaders often provide clear strategic direction and influence the how, but relationships and trust shape tactical execution.
United Kingdom
The British leadership style is pragmatic. Leaders set strategic objectives while allowing subordinates to determine the how within defined parameters. Tactical flexibility is valued, but alignment with strategic goals is maintained.
United States
Americans﹣those leading as well as those being led﹣prefer specifically formulated, command oriented tasks. The command addresses both the what, and to some degree the how. Overall responsibility for the how is shared by both levels. Patterns
Strategy Formulation
Brazil
Brazilian managers seek input from key stakeholders, but decision-making is often influenced by hierarchy and personal trust. While consensus is considered, the final decision rests with the manager, who ensures alignment through ongoing dialogue.
China
In China strategy is formulated by management, with limited direct input from lower levels. Decisions are communicated top-down, with an expectation of alignment and disciplined execution.
France
French managemnent involve key team members in discussing and refining ideas, often through lively exchanges. While the manager ultimately decides, achieving broad understanding and acceptance is seen as key to successful implementation.
Germany
Germans believe that important decisions should be reached via consensus. Ideally within the entire team, but at least among its key members. Once made, those decisions are best implemented when communicated, understood, and accepted by the broader organization. Patterns
India
Indian managers make important strategic decisions but often seek input from trusted advisors and key team members. Flexibility is important, and decisions may be adjusted based on evolving circumstances and stakeholder feedback.
Italy
Italian leaders make strategic decisions but involve key individuals in shaping direction. Debate and discussion are common before reaching a final decision, which is then communicated with an expectation of buy-in.
Japan
Japanese management makes strategic decisions carefully, with extensive input from different levels of the organization. Consensus ensures strong commitment to implementation, but the process can be slow due to the need for alignment.
Mexico
Mexican management makes strategic decisions but often consults key team members informally. Ensuring broad understanding and acceptance is important for effective execution, but direct authority remains with leadership.
United Kingdom
British team-leads make key strategic decisions, incorporating input from senior team members. Broad understanding and acceptance are valued, but execution is expected even without full consensus.
United States
Americans believe that important decisions should be made by the team lead. Ideally with input from key members of the team. Once made, those decisions are best implemented when communicated and understood by the broader organisation. Patterns
Strategy Modification
Brazil
Brazilian managers allow for flexibility in modifying decisions. While they set direction, those implementing strategies often adjust them based on practical realities. Communication with management is important.
China
In China modifications to strategy require approval from senior leadership. Unauthorized deviations are discouraged. Feedback can be given, but adjustments must align with long-term strategic goals and leadership expectations.
France
In France those implementing strategy may challenge or refine decisions if they see a better approach. While leaders make final decisions, discussion and reinterpretation are common, as long as the core objective is maintained.
Germany
Germans expect room to interpret decisions when implementing them. In certain situations Germans will deviate considerably from a decision which they, as subject matter experts, judge to be unwise, counterproductive, or harmful to the business. Patterns
India
In India strategy may be modified during implementation if practical constraints require it. While leadership approval is generally expected, workarounds and adjustments are often made to fit evolving circumstances.
Italy
Italian decisions are open to modification if implementers believe changes will improve outcomes. Leaders expect communication about major adjustments but are generally open to pragmatic refinements.
Japan
In Japan decision modifications are rare without approval, as alignment and group consensus are highly valued. If an issue arises, it is escalated rather than changed at the tactical level. Maintaining harmony and avoiding disruption are priorities.
Mexico
While managers set strategy, those implementing it may make adjustments based on practical realities. Major modifications require communication with leadership, but informal changes are sometimes made to accommodate local conditions.
United Kingdom
In the UK if a decision proves ineffective, those executing it will seek approval for modifications. Management expects communication about necessary changes but allow for some flexibility in tactical adjustments.
United States
Decisions which cannot work or would damage overall efforts are communicated up the chain of command by those working on the tactical level. There is very low tolerance for modifying decisions without authorization from next-level management. Patterns
Lines of Communication
Brazil
Brazilians maintain short and flexible lines of communication. Frequent interaction is common, as relationships play a key role in business. Managers expect updates and discussions. The communication is often informal rather than highly structured.
China
In China information flows mainly from the top down, with fewer iterations at the tactical level. However, leaders expect regular status updates to ensure alignment. Major decisions and changes require approval from senior management.
France
While French managers delegate responsibilities, they also expect engagement and feedback. Tactical discussions can be frequent, but independence is respected. Meetings serve as forums for refining strategy rather than micromanaging execution.
Germany
Because Germans – those leading as well as those being led – prefer generally formulated, mission oriented tasks (more what, less how), they maintain longer lines of communication: less interaction, less frequent status meetings, fewer iterations on tactical issues. Patterns
India
The Indians maintain short and adaptive lines of communication. Frequent check-ins, informal updates, and discussions are common, especially in fast-moving environments. Hierarchy influences communication flow, but flexibility allows for realignment when necessary.
Italy
The Italians blend structured delegation with active discussion. Management provides general direction but engages in ongoing communication to ensure alignment. Tactical discussions and iterations are common, particularly when adjustments are needed due to external factors.
Japan
The Japanese maintain long and highly structured lines of communication. Initial planning is thorough to minimize the need for frequent tactical discussions. Once a plan is in motion, updates are expected, but significant changes require consensus before implementation.
Mexico
The Mexicans favor short and relationship-driven communication lines. Frequent updates and discussions help maintain alignment, as trust and rapport are key. Managers expect regular feedback, and tactical issues are addressed collaboratively.
United Kingdom
British managers strike a balance between efficiency and engagement. Communication lines vary based on leadership style and project needs. Regular updates are expected, but managers delegate responsibility and trust their teams to execute without excessive oversight.
United States
Because Americans﹣those leading as well as those being led﹣prefer specific, command oriented tasks (both what and how), they maintain shorter lines of communication: more interaction, more frequent status meetings, more iterations on tactical issues. Patterns