home > Shoes > The difference between strategy and politics. Klein. About the strategy and policy Brief description of the approved policy of the strategy

The difference between strategy and politics. Klein. About the strategy and policy Brief description of the approved policy of the strategy

    What is written in all encyclopedias - that "stratos" in ancient Greek means "army" - these are all later fabrications. In the Slavic-Balkan-Greek languages, the root “howl” has been preserved: warrior, army, fight. It is also pronounced as “battle”: fighter, fighter, Boris, Boeotia (“these plains were the reason that Boeotia so often served as a battlefield for the Greeks”). There is also the word "mahiya" - battle. Known, for example, Titanomachia. The word "miss" means "warrior in the front line of the phalanx", the name "miss" was quite common in ancient Greece ("this guy is not a miss!").
I want to tell you about strategy and politics. Explain the meaning of these concepts in their mutual relationship.

Both politics and strategy as words, as concepts, appeared in ancient Greece. Athenian generals began to be called strategists in the middle of the 5th century BC. The words "strategist, strategy" come from the word "strata" - a strip. The building in Athens, in which the members of the military council met, was called "strategy". It was called so not because “the strategists sat there”, but because it was completed, like the city walls, from materials prepared for the construction of the temple of Olympian Zeus, which, as you know, was interrupted - and they were of a slightly different color . And so that it would not be seen that this was just completion, Iktin advised stones different color lay in stripes. Well, and then already, among the people, this building began to be called "strategy" - "polosun".

The word “pisistrategy”, given by jokers at the same time to this building, did not take root, as well as the nickname “ioladius”, although the members of the council were called “iolaids” for some time. So "strategist" is "minke whale", in Russian.

Later, the one who was chosen as a military leader wore a cloak with a stripe, a border. The military tribunes of the Roman Empire wore cloaks with a thin red stripe around the edge. Now this is preserved in the stripes of the generals.

The word "politics" and the very concept of "politics" were formed around the same time in the same place. Why do we start with history? In those days, politics and strategy were separated very clearly and clearly. Politics is what is in peacetime, strategy is what is in time of war.

Over 2,500 years, these concepts have become more complex, blurred, new forms, new applications have appeared, and now it is more difficult to separate where the company's policy, for example, and where the company's strategy is. And in the mutual relationship that goes from historical roots to the present time, we will now give more or less clear boundaries of these concepts.

So, what is the difference between politics, like managing something in times of peace, and strategy, like managing something in times of war?

It should be said that control always involves a trajectory. Management is taxiing, which involves a certain trajectory. Which, accordingly, can be divided into steps, into stages, stages, but in any case, this is a trajectory. There is control - there is a trajectory.

Accordingly, if there is a trajectory that needs to be followed, that is, along which you need to steer, then there is always a subject of politics, and it is always the one from whom the managerial impulse comes. There is no politics without a subject. When we talk, for example, about “policy towards small business”, we must immediately understand that this is the policy of the state, and this is the policy of the local administration, for example, the government of Moscow. Or the politics of any party. Those. politics always has a subject.

And politics always has an object. For now, let's define the object as follows - "what is considered by the subject", what he is going to apply something to.

Let's go back. How is peacetime different from wartime? How is the political space different from the policy space? I'm talking about fast-forward to those 2,500 years ago, when concepts were still fairly simple, until they got more complicated.

They differ in that there are many subjects in the policy space. Here is my policy, for example, of the Greek state, here is the policy of the Romans, here is the policy of the Parthian kingdom, and here is another. - That is, the subjects of politics and, consequently, the flows of these policies, are intertwined in a certain field, in a certain space, and I must take them all into account when pursuing my trajectory, pursuing my policy.

During the war, the situation is always different. In times of war, there are always two enemies. Even if there are many states at war, there is always a front line. There is one camp and there is another camp. War is always two. There is an enemy, there is a front line and there are two hostile camps. And if there are still some forces, they are determined in relation to the front line: for the Reds or for the Whites. If someone is neither for the Reds nor for the Whites, then he simply has not decided yet. He will have to decide.

In other words, the space of war is the extreme zone of politics. And it is extreme not by the type of tools used - there are words, here bayonets - but by the fact that the field with tortuous and multiple streams of politics becomes extremely clear. Here is a crack, here are two camps. And here they are making a stand on each other. The extremity of the situation lies in the fact that it is extremely simplified in its extremum - having fully developed, having defined itself up to this extremum. Pre-crystallized. Here, we fix such a difference between politics and strategy.

Continuing the theme of war and peace, we say that politics is always a question of power. Directly, indirectly, with greater force, with less force, explicitly, implicitly. Strategy is a matter of winning. On this scale, on this level, and so on. The question of power and the question of victory. And this is also characterized by the fact that these are two different spaces.

When armies fight, they don't decide questions of power. This principle is preserved as long as the armies are part of the state and do not interfere in politics. “The question of power” means that there is a certain field in which several subjects of politics, several parties operate. In the very simple form- these are pretenders to the throne, around whom there are associates. These are also parties. The word "party" comes from the word "part" - part, portion, parcel, i.e. part of something. In this sense, this is a part of people who unite on the principle of common political views.

Political views are essentially “attitudes towards power”. That is: I am for the fact that there was this applicant, there was power from this source, and I am for the fact that there was this applicant for the throne, the power from this source. The party is at the limit, it is when the bearers of political views are no longer looking alone, but united with their own kind. It is clear that we may not talk about power directly, just a certain issue can be discussed, and one party has one opinion, the other - another, but even this in the limit always comes down to the source of power of whom and, accordingly, what. The power of "who and what", because the power is personified by the king, the leader, the person - but this "tip of power", this person, is the personification of a certain system of values, a certain system of ideas. Some "what" is embodied, personified in some "who".

Any issue that political parties deal with - it's all subordinated, in the end, to the issue of power - it doesn't matter, the seizure of power, the balance of power, opposition to something in power.

It is from there - and Lenin very correctly formulated this - that, for example, such a thing appears: "the policy of the party in the agrarian question." That is, a certain projection of the question of power in relation to a specific area of ​​human activity or in relation to the organization of human activity. – Politics, for example, towards allies, fellow travelers, political parties that have a similar ideology, towards workers, the international proletariat, and so on and so forth.

In the same way, there is a policy of the king – the policy of the king in relation to this kingdom, the policy of the king in relation to any issue – so he conducts such and such a policy. And, accordingly, it becomes clear, taking into account everything that I said, there is a king, there are parties as a more advanced, freer, more democratic thing. And there, and there, questions about power remain - and there, and there the use of the word "politics" is legitimate. And at the end of the 19th century, most likely, even at the beginning of the 20th century, such phrases as “company policy” in relation to something already appear. At the same time, a “strategy of companies” appears.

I repeat, before the word "politics" was used exclusively in the peaceful state field, and "strategy" - in the military (Clausewitz, Moltke, Sun Tzu). In the 20th century, the world acquires additional complexity, it becomes more free, democratized - (what is "freedom"? - it is "more subjects who are willing and able to do it") - and concepts such as "politics" and "strategy ” come out of the narrow circle of kings and generals, supreme politicians, and begin to spread in breadth. Just like, however, literacy, or a good standard of living, or the ability to travel, or the opportunity to get an education, or the opportunity to be elected.

Company policy. In this case, the “subject of politics” can be defined not as the subject of the “field where power in the state is discussed”, but as the subject of a sufficiently powerful action. The political actions of the space of power are characterized by a certain level of power. emergence large companies- this is the emergence of centers of power that are not directly located in the nest of power. However, their effects can be quite powerful. At the same time, such phrases as “company policy” appear. For example, "company environmental policy". One policy, for example, "use the sewage treatment plant in every possible way", the second policy is "pretend to clean in every possible way" (and pour incessantly).

Politicians can exist on any issue, there are many of them, and policies can be different. They can be reduced to five types or two types - it's how you look, how you want to see.

And so we take such an object as a company, which is not as rigidly defined as an army or a tsar, and consider - and what is the relationship between politics and strategy?

Before that, it must be said that when a party says “we have such a policy” ... - let's take the same VKP (b) or the RSDLP - the party headed by Lenin, a party of a new type.

Why is she a "new type"? She presents well organized group of people. Organized both at the level of ideology, self-determination, and at the level of actions. In this sense, it is different from the crowd of followers of some king or politician, that is, what the parties of the "old type" were.

So, this party has a strategy. The strategy, in particular, of the CPSU(b), was expressed in the maximum program and the minimum program. The strategic goal of the maximum program is the construction of communism and socialism as the first part, and the minimum program and, accordingly, the goal defined in it is the overthrow of tsarism. And just after the first goal was achieved, i.e. the minimum program was completed, after 1917, already in the 18th year, the VIII Congress of the Party was held, at which it was adopted new program party, precisely because the minimum program was carried out. For reference, it must be said that the next party program was adopted in 1961.

So, what is the connection on the example of the CPSU (b) of such concepts as strategy, tactics and politics? These goals, like the minimum program for overthrowing the tsarist system and the maximum program for building communism, are strategic goals parties. Smaller strategic goal, larger strategic goal. Accordingly, everything that the party does next, if the strategy is defined in this way, are tactical tasks.

For example: to organize or not to organize? Should all members of the party share the ideology and participate in the life of the party and obey the decisions of the party or should they not? Is a party just a community of people who have similar views on ongoing political events, or is it a detachment of organized people?

Lenin insisted that the party should be made up of people who had not just "common" views, but "unified" views. In other words, they recognize the program of the party, and the program of the party is built quite clearly and rigidly; the second - they participate constantly in the life of the party, including the payment of membership dues, and the third - they obey the decisions of the party bodies.

What does it mean? This means that there is a discussion - everyone is free to express their point of view. It is clear that it is set in a certain corridor; it cannot endlessly float from one extreme to another, i.e. if these are still people with similar political views, and this corridor, if we take it as a whole, we are talking about the unity of political views. But if we zoom in, then within this corridor there may be different points of view. And the solution is not a corridor, it is a thin, clear line. Therefore, the principle is this: there is a time for discussion, a time to scatter stones, and there is a time to collect stones, when a decision is made and you need to follow it, carry it out.

And so the principle of "democratic centralism." Its essence lies in the fact that there is a discussion, and this is the democratic part, but when a decision is made, it must be implemented, this is centralism. That is, actually we are talking about balancing 2 vectors, 2 flows. - This is “viability”, in the sense of how wide the circle of this phenomenon is, the viability of the phenomenon, which is determined by the number of participants in this phenomenon, if it decreases over time, the phenomenon dies, if it increases, the phenomenon lives. And "organization" - the ability to act, discipline, cohesion and, consequently, narrowing the circle of participants. Therefore, any political force is, on the one hand, always a phenomenon, it is a kind of flow in a certain social environment. On the other hand, it is organization, formalization, locking the flow into some framework. Therefore, the principle of democratic centralism - its philosophy, its fundamental essence - boils down to finding the right balance between the viability of this stream as a phenomenon (so that it does not decrease) and the viability of this stream as an organization (so that it acts).

The more clearly built "organization", the more effective it is. But there is no question that the number of its employees should increase. And, conversely, the more people are attracted to the “stream”, the more attractive it is, the more viable this phenomenon is as “ social phenomenon". A party is at the same time a “phenomenon”, because people who share views and want something gather there, unite according to the principle of views and desires, and at the same time it is an “organization”, because people unite according to the functional principle, i.e. on the principle that they must do something, proceeding not only from “want”, but also from “should”.

This is the essence of democratic centralism - a balance to ensure the survivability of the flow, the phenomenon, and the survivability of the organization.

So, the strategy is determined by the party, everything else is tactics. How we, for example, will relate to party membership is determined based on the strategy. Or, in other words, "the tactics of the party in this matter should be such and such."

And in this matter, Lenin firmly stood on this principle that the party is ... well, I have already listed these one, two, three. And this was expressed in a very tough ideological struggle at the 2nd Party Congress in 1903, the first question of the congress was on the first paragraph of the Charter "Membership in the Party." But, as it is now clear, this is not just some kind of formal question, but it has in mind what a party is and, in depth, what is the balance between a “phenomenon” and an “organization”. And Lenin insisted on the correct position. There was a part of the congress that insisted on the opposite position. The point of view of Lenin won. What do you mean won? This was voted by the majority at the congress. Accordingly, there was a minority that did not win. It was from there that such well-known terms as "Bolsheviks" and "Mensheviks" were born. Bolsheviks were the members of the majority of the congress on this issue, and Mensheviks were the members of the minority of the congress on this issue. Here is such a story.

So, the party has a strategy, the party has tactics, this is understandable, and the party has a policy. How is politics different from tactics? I did not say for nothing: "politics on the issue of such and such." It can be said differently. For example, politics in relation to parties with a similar ideology. You can say not "on the issue", but the policy "in relation" to pariahs with a similar ideology.

Why am I reformulating like this now? You need to understand that politics is a "relationship" in the sense that when you define yourself in the political space, then being the subject of politics, you define your position - the key word! - IN RELATION TO AN OBJECT. You define your attitude. You solve the issue. Policy on the agrarian question. What question are you solving? You decide how you feel about a certain set of ideas on, for example, the issue of land distribution. And you define your position. And you express it in understandable formulations, in words - to the audience, to the outside world. And in this sense, politics, any politics, it, in general, ends with the definition of its position, its attitude. These need to be supported, this needs to be supported, that's all that is said, bullshit, you need to do it like this, or, in other words, "support the point of view, the position that I have formulated."

A company's strategy always begins - we are no longer talking about the space of war and peace - with politics, with attitudes. From the position. It always starts with the fact that we treat it this way, and now let's see what we have to do here. For example, here is a company, and it is recruiting some personnel. Let it be a steel company, for example. And the question arises: to take emigrants, Mexicans? The Senate is against, it doesn't matter, or for him, but I don't want to. Congress is against it, but I want it because I'm Mexican. Board of Directors…

What I'm talking about? - About the fact that there are reasons to decide on some issue. When they are not there, then we do not pay attention to it. But there was a reason to decide on something. There was a question or, in other words, there was a need to give an answer. Or, what is the same, to formulate one's position, one's attitude.

And so you say, for example: "The company's policy in relation to emigrants as a workforce is such that not only open the doors wide, but also stimulate this process in every possible way." It's attitude, it's politics. And now the strategy begins. Now I am not saying where the strategy is, where the tactics are, because here the question is only about the hierarchy of goals. The top one is called the strategy. Everything below is what we call tactics. If we forget the higher goals, we can call what we call tactics a strategy. This is a hierarchy, scaling. And so we say: “The company's strategy in this recruitment field work force, or personnel policy, it will not only open the doors wide to emigrants, but also educate them in every possible way. And then we form a strategy.

If we are talking about an action, it must have at least pegs, dotted lines of certainty. And she, the strategy, says that we must reach such an indicator in 5 years. For example, that every day we have 2-3 Mexicans at the door. Well, for example. Or that by this point the company has no problems with the workforce.

Or better this way: Less and less people want to do this. They don't want to work in a steel mill. And then we say: ok, here we have such a strategy, it has such and such a period, it aims in every possible way to promote the authority of this profession in the emigrant environment, and therefore, it should be considered in such aspects as how to convey this information to them, as to train personnel, how to give benefits, how to get the government to give benefits, how to convey to government officials that we will not increase our American steel production in any other way, and so on. And a strategy is formed. But the essence of this strategy is some kind of action. In folded form - what do I want?

Strategy always starts with "what I want". But before this "what I want" is the position - "how do I feel about it?" There is still no vector of desire, desire, action. And, accordingly, the space of politics ends with the question “how do I feel about this?” – and the space of strategy begins with the question “how do I feel about this?”. – Moreover, it is instantly formatted into the question “what do I want, what am I going to do with all this attitude to this?”

The lecture is over.

Strategy and tactics, politics, in military affairs have been known since ancient times, in management these concepts have existed for only fifty years. And questions often arise about what is strategy, what is tactics, and what is politics.

In management, the first definition of strategy was given by Alfred Chandler in 1962: "Strategy is the definition of the main long-term goals and objectives of the enterprise and the approval of the course of action and the allocation of resources necessary to achieve these goals." And in 1980, James Quinn defined the strategy and its components as follows: “A correctly formulated strategy allows you to streamline and distribute always in one way or another limited resources organization in the most efficient and unique way. The strategy should contain three essential components: (1) main chains of activity; (2) the most significant policy elements that direct or limit the field of action; and (3) a program of main actions aimed at achieving the set goals and not going beyond the chosen policy.

The main purpose of the activity commercial organizations is profit, without it they cannot also exist and develop non-profit organizations. The policy determines the direction of activity (mission) of commercial organizations, on the basis of which a strategy is developed: strategic goals, programs to achieve them, setting private goals for departments and allocating resources.

More often, strategy is understood as programs and plans to achieve the goals of the organization as a whole and the definition of private goals. structural divisions, distribution of resources for private purposes. And the implementation of the strategy, i.e. achievement of private goals is understood as a tactic. At the same time, the goals of the organization are largely determined by its policy, those areas of activity that it considers to be priority and most beneficial.

So we have a chain: the main goal - policy (mission) - strategy - tactics.

At the same time, strategy is the level of the organization, the level of planning to achieve the ultimate goals of the organization with a planning horizon of several years, up to 5-10 years, and tactics is the level of structural units. But most organizations have a whole hierarchy of departments. Each division, receiving a goal, actually also develops its own strategy for achieving it: its private strategic goals, programs to achieve them, sets private goals for subordinate units and distributes resources. And so on down to specific employees, who are also set a goal, resources are allocated. At the same time, each department, each employee, has its own policies.

In fact, we have a hierarchy of strategies, what seems to be a tactical issue for any higher unit, for a lower one, in order to solve it, requires the development of its own private strategy. And there is no fundamental difference in the development of an organization's strategy and the development of a strategy for its structural unit. The difference is only in scale.

Thus, we already have the following chain: the main goal of the organization is a hierarchy of strategies.

At the levels of structural units, we have private goals and private strategies with a shorter planning horizon. Moreover, the scale of goals and planning horizons decrease as the level of the hierarchy decreases. So, at the level of mid-level divisions, the planning horizon is often a month, quarter or year, and at the level of specific employees in serial production, for example, elementary parts are manufactured, and the planning horizon of an employee can be only one day (work order for one day).

The development of an organization's strategy is not two stages of developing a strategy and developing tactics, it is a multi-stage process of developing a strategy at all levels of the hierarchy, from the level of the organization as a whole, to the level of specific employees.

Strictly speaking, if we have a goal, then we, in our activities, develop, taking into account our policy, both our private goals and programs for achieving goals. Consciously or subconsciously, we are engaged in the development and implementation of our strategy. The only question is how developed it is and how effective it is.

Bibliography.

1. Drucker Peter. Management practice. - M.: Publishing house "William", 2001. - 398 p.
2. Quinn James. Change strategy. // In the book: Mintzberg G., Quinn JB, Ghoshal S. Strategic process. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. - 688 p.
__________________


Reviews, comments and questions on the article:
"Strategy, tactics and politics"


Thank you for the literate text, but I didn’t understand, but structural divisions can’t have a long-term strategy? 19.05.2015 22:44 Consultant Zhemchugov Mikhail, Ph.D.

The strategy includes the adopted goals of the activity, the policies (principles and norms) for achieving the goals, and the program of activities for the practical achievement of the goals (James Quinn).
The strategy development approach includes:

  1. Development of a system of private strategic goals of the company, ensuring the achievement of the goal set for the company and setting them before the company's managers.
  2. Determination of policies for achieving private strategic goals (within the framework of the specified company policies).
  3. Definition of activity programs to achieve strategic goals.
And this is a consistently developed hierarchical system: the company's strategy, the strategy of the top-level divisions, the strategy of the divisions of the lower levels of the hierarchy, the tactical (operational) goals of the lower level.

The implementation of the strategy goes from the bottom up: the achieved tactical goals of the lower level add up to the strategic results of higher levels and the result of the company.

03.05.2016 20:35 Consultant Zhemchugov Mikhail, Ph.D.

Strategic management, like strategy, has several levels. The highest level is the definition of the company's strategic goals in the main areas: production and sales, development of new products, development of means of production, etc. and allocation of resources for these areas. Goals that ensure the achievement of the set social and economic goals by the company. And managing the achievement of these strategic goals.
It is clear that this level of strategy and strategic management- the prerogative of top management and it cannot be delegated to lower levels (otherwise, each lower-level division will "pull the blanket over itself" trying to get the smallest goals with the largest resources).
However, it is expedient to delegate the strategies for achieving the given specific substantive goals with the allocated resources to the lower levels. Top management will have neither the time nor the specific knowledge of the situation of the lower levels for this.

INTRODUCTION 3

CHAPTER 1 STRATEGY AND POLICY OF THE ENTERPRISE 5

1.1 Enterprise strategy and policy 5

1.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF PAVLODAR TRACTOR PLANT LLP 8

Chapter 2. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF PTZ LLP 13

FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/01/2008 TO 07/01/2008 13

2.1 BALANCE ANALYSIS OF THE ENTERPRISE 13

2.2 ANALYSIS OF THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE ENTERPRISE 16

2.3 ASSESSMENT OF SOLVENCY (LIQUIDITY) OF THE ENTERPRISE 21

2.4 ROI ANALYSIS 24

REFERENCES 28

INTRODUCTION

The theme of this course project is devoted to the consideration of issues that are related to the choice of strategy for the enterprise.

Any company that starts its activity or is already operating, at the beginning of a new project, is obliged to clearly present the need for the future in financial, material, labor and intellectual resources, the sources of their receipt, and also be able to accurately calculate the efficiency of using resources available in the course of the company. In a market economy, entrepreneurs should not count on a stable income and success without clear and effective planning of their activities, constant collection and accumulation of information about both the state of target markets, the position of competitors in them, and their own capabilities and prospects. One of the main areas of strategic planning is business planning, which provides for a development perspective, if it is correctly drawn up and answers the most important question for a businessman - is it worth investing in a particular project, will it bring income that can pay for everything expenditure of manpower and resources.

The object of study in this thesis project is the existing planning system, strategy and planning in the enterprise. The assessment of the financial condition of the enterprise is subject to study; compliance of the available financial and material resources with the possibilities of achieving the set goals; compliance with the existing personnel of the enterprise; compliance of the available financial and material resources with the possibilities of achieving the set goals; compliance of the existing personnel of the enterprise, the conditions for motivating their work with the requirements for achieving the goals; the composition of marketing enterprises for market research, advertising, sales promotion, pricing; difficulties that may interfere with the practical implementation of the business plan.

In the context of the transition to a market economy, mastering the art of choosing a strategy for drawing up a business plan becomes extremely relevant, which is due to the following reasons: a new generation of entrepreneurs appears, many of whom do not have experience in managing an enterprise and therefore have a very vague idea of ​​all the problems that await them; the changing business environment puts experienced managers in front of the need to calculate their actions in the market in a different way and prepare for such an unusual activity for them as the fight against competitors; expecting to receive foreign investment no worse than businessmen from other countries.

The purpose of this course project is to develop measures to eliminate shortcomings in the planning system at PTZ LLP, as well as to improve the activities of the enterprise in the market, to find ways to improve the current production technology, and to standardize labor protection.

CHAPTER 1 STRATEGY AND POLICY OF THE ENTERPRISE


1.1 Enterprise strategy and policy

The financial policy of an enterprise is an integral part of its economic policy. If finance is a basic category that has historically developed in the context of the origin and development of commodity-money relations, then financial policy is expressed as a set of measures taken by the owner, administration, labor collective (depending on the form of ownership and management of the enterprise) in order to find and use finance for implementation of the main functions and tasks.

Activities of this kind include the development of scientifically based concepts for the organization of financial activities, the identification of key areas for the use of financial funds for the long, medium and short periods, as well as the practical implementation of the developed strategy.

The concepts of organizing the financial activity of an enterprise are based on a study of demand for products and services, assessment of various (financial, material, labor, intellectual, information) resources of an enterprise and forecasting the results of economic activity.

Directions for the use of financial funds of the enterprise are determined based on the goals set, the position of the enterprise in the market, and the developed concept of organizing financial activities. main goal financial policy enterprise is the most complete and effective use and build-up of its financial potential.

The financial policy expresses the purposeful use of finance to achieve the strategic and tactical objectives defined by the founding documents (charter) of the enterprise. For example, strengthening positions in the goods (services) market, achieving an acceptable sales volume, profit and return on assets and equity, maintaining solvency and liquidity of the balance sheet.

In the conditions of an unstable economic environment, high inflation, a crisis of non-payments, unpredictable tax and monetary policies of the state, many enterprises are forced to pursue a line of survival. It is expressed in the solution of current financial problems as a reaction to the uncertain macroeconomic attitudes of state power structures. Such a policy in financial management gives rise to a number of contradictions between the interests of enterprises and the fiscal interests of the state; the price of external borrowings and the profitability of production; return on equity and the stock market; interests of production and financial services, etc.

development of an optimal concept for managing the financial (cash) flows of an enterprise, providing a combination of high profitability and protection from commercial risks;

identification of the main directions for the use of financial resources for the current period (a decade, a month, a quarter) and for the short term (a year or more). At the same time, the possibilities for the development of production and trade activities are taken into account. The state of the macroeconomic situation (taxation, discount rate of bank interest, depreciation rates for fixed assets, etc.);

implementation of practical actions aimed at achieving the set goals (financial analysis and control, choosing a method of financing an enterprise, evaluating real investment projects and financial assets etc.).

The unity of the three key links determines the content of the financial policy, the strategic objectives of which are:

a) profit maximization as a source of economic growth;

b) optimization of the structure and cost of capital, ensuring the financial stability and business activity of the enterprise;

c) achieving financial openness of the enterprise for investors and creditors;

d) use of market mechanisms for raising capital through financial leasing, project financing;

e) development of an effective financial management mechanism (financial management) based on the diagnosis of the financial condition, taking into account the setting of strategic goals for the enterprise, adequate to market conditions, and the search for ways to achieve them.

When developing an effective financial management system, the problems of harmonizing the development of the interests of the enterprise, the availability of a sufficient amount of financial resources and maintaining high solvency constantly arise.

Based on the duration of the period and the nature of the tasks to be solved, financial policy is classified into financial strategy and tactics.

The financial strategy is developed in accordance with the global objectives of the socio-economic strategy of the enterprise. It is a long-term financial policy. In the process of its development, the main trends in the development of finance are predicted, the concept of use is formed, the principles of financial relations with the state (tax policy) and partners (suppliers, buyers, creditors, investors, insurers, etc.) are outlined.

The strategy involves the choice of alternative ways of enterprise development. At the same time, forecasts, experience and intuition of specialists (managers) are used to mobilize financial resources to achieve the set goals. From the position of the strategy, specific goals and objectives of production and financial activities are formed and operational management decisions are made.

The most important areas of development of the financial strategy of the enterprise include:

analysis and assessment of the financial and economic condition;

development of accounting and tax policies;

development of credit policy;

fixed capital management and depreciation policy;

management of current assets and accounts payable;

management of borrowed funds;

management of current costs, sales of products and profits;

price policy;

choice of dividend and investment policy;

assessment of the achievements of the enterprise and its market value.

However, the choice of one strategy or another does not guarantee a predictable effect (income) due to the influence of external factors, in particular the state of the financial market, tax, customs, budgetary and monetary policy of the state.

An integral part of the financial strategy is long-term financial planning, focused on achieving the main parameters of the enterprise: the volume and cost of sales, profit, profitability, financial stability and solvency.

Financial tactics is aimed at solving more particular problems of a particular stage of enterprise development by timely changing the ways of organizing financial ties, redistributing financial resources between types of expenses and structural divisions. With a relatively stable financial strategy, financial tactics should be flexible, which is caused by changes in market conditions (supply and demand for resources, goods, services and capital). The strategy and tactics of financial policy are closely interrelated. A correctly chosen strategy creates favorable opportunities for solving tactical problems.

Financial policy at enterprises should be carried out by professionals - chief financial managers (directors), who have all the information about the strategy and tactics of the organization.

For acceptance management decisions they use the information provided in accounting and statistical reporting in operational financial accounting, which serves as the main source of data to determine the indicators used in financial analysis and intracompany cash flow planning.

Intra-company financial planning includes the development of the following operational documents (for a month, a quarter, a year):

the budget of income and expenses for the enterprise as a whole and for its branches, if any;

budget on the balance sheet (forecast of the balance of assets and liabilities for the most important items);

capital budget.

Financial analysis includes the following links:

assessment of financial opportunities to determine strategic goals;

distribution and evaluation of the efficiency of cash flows by areas of activity (current, investment and financial) based on the production and sales strategy;

determination of additional need for financial resources and channels for their receipt (bank credit, leasing, commodity credit, etc.);

transformation of monetary resources into a form that clearly shows the financial capabilities of the enterprise, which is reflected in the reporting;

assessment of the effectiveness of financial and investment decisions made through indicators of financial stability, solvency, profitability of business and market activity of the organization.

The financial policy of an enterprise cannot be considered in isolation from the financial policy of the state - a set of measures aimed at accumulating finance in order to solve national socio-economic and political problems. The external, macroeconomic environment of an organization always has a stronger influence on economic activity than the internal, microeconomic environment. Therefore, the financial policy of the enterprise largely depends on the priorities of the state financial policy, its validity and reality.

State financial policy can create more or less favorable conditions for the economic process.

In the pre-perestroika period in Kazakhstan, the financial policy of an enterprise could not significantly affect the results of its economic activity. The financial independence of an economic entity was often so small that the basis for the financial success of an enterprise was factors not directly related to its production activities.

After the transition to the market, enterprises have gained considerable autonomy and independence, for all that, their activities are still largely determined by the state financial policy and depend on it. In this sense, the financial policy of the enterprise should be considered as a dynamic category. It changes substantively under the influence of changes in the financial policy pursued by regional, republican (regional, district) and local government bodies.

Abstract >> State and law

... enterprise Samara 2010 Contents Introduction 1. Development of an anti-crisis strategies organization 2. Implementation of the selected anti-crisis strategies: tactics ...

  • Strategy projected enterprises

    Abstract >> Marketing

    ... (in the case of LLP, SE, private enterprises). 3.4 Strategy growth enterprises strategy choose on the basis of the analysis carried out ... the market as strategies and price reduction as tactics. The challenge of further growth enterprises may be...

  • Strategy and tactics human resource management organization

    Thesis >> Management

    ... enterprises 2.3. Peculiarities strategies and tactics management by human resourses in JSC "KamPRZ" 3. Suggestions and recommendations for improvement strategies and tactics... crafted on enterprise certain strategies and tactics management of human...

    • From a business point of view, the term strategy" refers to a unique plan designed to achieve a competitive position in the marketplace and to achieve the goals and objectives of the organization. In short, it is a plan of interpretation that guides the enterprise towards the realization of its purpose. On the other hand, politics refers to a set of rules developed by an organization for rational decision making.

    The policy sets out the course of action that is chosen to guide the organization's current and future decisions. Many people confuse these two terms, but they are not the same. Here you need to know that politics is subject to strategy. Here in this article, we have tried to point out the significant differences between strategy and policy. Look at it.

    comparison table

    Definition of strategy

    A strategy is a game plan chosen to achieve an organization's goals, win customer trust, achieve competitive advantage and gaining a position in the market. It is the combination of well thought out intentions and actions that lead the organization to its desired position or destination. It is a unified and integrated plan designed to achieve the main goals of the enterprise, such as:

    • efficiency
    • Event and Problem Handling
    • Exploiting Opportunities
    • Full resource utilization
    • Deal with Threats

    Strategy is a combination of flexibly designed corporate actions that enable an organization to compete successfully with its competitors. The following are the features of the Strategy:

    • This should be articulated by senior management. However, sub-strategies can be made by middle management.
    • This should be long term.
    • It must be dynamic in nature.
    • The main goal is to overcome uncertain situations.
    • This must be done in such a way as to make the best use of limited resources.

    Policy definition

    Policy is also seen as a mini-mission, a set of principles and rules that guide the decisions of an organization. Policies are defined by top-level management of the organization as a guide to operational decision making. It is useful in highlighting the rules, values ​​and beliefs of the organization. In addition to this, it serves as a basis for guiding actions.

    Policies are developed taking into account the opinion and general opinion of a number of people in the organization regarding any situation. They are made from experience and basic understanding. Thus, people who fall under the scope of such a policy will fully agree with its implementation.

    Policies help the management of an organization determine what should be done in a particular situation. They must be applied consistently over a long period to avoid discrepancies and overlaps.

    Key Differences Between Strategy and Policy

    Following are the main differences between strategy and policy.

    1. This strategy is best plan selected from a series of plans to achieve the goals and objectives of the organization. The policy is a set general rules and provisions that serve as the basis for day-to-day decisions.
    2. Strategy is a plan of action, and policy is a principle of action.
    3. Strategies can be changed according to the situation, so they are dynamic. Conversely, the policy is homogeneous. However, relaxations can be made for unexpected situations.
    4. Strategies are action-oriented, while politics are decision-oriented.
    5. Top management always creates strategies, but sub-strategies are formulated at the middle level. Unlike Policies, they are usually made by top management.
    6. Strategies deal with external factors environment. On the other hand, policies are designed to internal environment business.

    Conclusion

    The difference between strategy and policy is a bit tricky because policies fall under strategies. In addition, policies are developed to support strategies in several ways, such as achieving organizational goals and securing an advantageous market position. Both are made by top management and also made after deep analysis.

    Political leadership of social communities and the masses, which involves the collection and description of empirical information, on the basis of which the location and correlation of sociopolitical forces are determined, and a development forecast is drawn up, which assumes situations and suggests a regrouping of forces, and constitutes strategy and tactics political activity in the political process. Political activity covers all forms of politics and has its own internal structure: political leadership of the state and society; political functioning; participation of citizens in the political life of society; political marketing, that is, a system of advertising and the like. Activities aimed at defining the system, goals and objectives, the formation of political strategy, political tactics based on the analysis of real political events and phenomena, forecasting political development is the essence of political leadership. Political leadership is carried out mainly through the main forms: state and political party activities, representative bodies and structures, etc. Political leadership also forms a political platform. Political platform - a set of theoretical and ideological provisions, a practical program, requirements, slogans that are put forward by political parties and state structures and which guide the state, political parties, political movements in their activities, public associations. Both the political strategy and political tactics, and the political course are determined.

    Political strategy - determination of a long-term goal, a broad program of action, daily tasks, a common long-term line of political behavior, main directions of activity, scientifically substantiated development of real political events and phenomena, and the like. The strategy determines and provides the main direction of the political activity of the subjects of power and politics. Its object is the development of the main goal, programs at a certain stage of the political activity of political subjects, ways and means of achieving them. Under the conditions of democratization of public life, the main link, the main direction in the political process, the sequence of political problems that are being solved are determined.

    Tactics- this is part of the strategy, the political line of the subjects of politics for a relatively short period, it is a set of ways, forms, techniques, methods and means of implementing political ideas and programs, achieving the main goal and objectives of the strategy. Political tactics derive from and are subordinate to political strategy. Political strategy and political tactics are components of political leadership, closely interconnected. Freedom of choice by the people of the socio-political system, de-ideologization international relations, the priority of universal human values ​​over class ones, the rejection of war as a means and method of solving political problems, the human dimension of politics, etc. - all this is characteristic of modern political strategy and political tactics. A constructive political strategy also provides for progressive political development, a constructive choice of means and methods for its implementation (the art of compromise, contractual relations, the prevention of extreme situations, the growing role of law, the implementation of preventive (preemptive) diplomatic activity, the avoidance of hostilities, consideration and appeal to public opinion and the like).

    An important link in the development of strategy and tactics in politics is the decision-making process, setting goals and objectives. Their preparation is connected with clarifying the positions and views of the main political forces of the country, which are offered in the form of alternatives. Their level - evidence of the potential of political actors from a legal point of view makes them responsible for the preparation and implementation of political decisions. It is known that the effectiveness of the so-called rally democracy is not high. While creating a political mood, rally democracy does not bring it within the limits of the people's interests that are being realized, it does not create the necessary political mechanism for realizing the political mood. It is important in political activity to clearly define the effectiveness and realism of decisions, avoiding the so-called verbal ones, which are not specifically organized, although there are slogans designed to form the necessary political guidelines in the public mind.

    To organize political activities to achieve a specific goal and decisions special meaning has a choice of means. Known expression: politics is the art of the permissible, the art of compromise, has a conditional relation to the means of implementing strategic and tactical decisions, because in a political decision the choice of means plays a decisive role, success depends on it. That is why the art of the permissible is a set of means that correspond to the stability of the situation, but this is not an extreme option, when the permissible solution changes quickly, although it should go in the wake of universal human ideas. With this approach, the political compromise also has a specific content, acting in the sense of a possible, but not always acceptable means.

    One must be able to maneuver politically, to determine the time, the field of attack and retreat, changing tactics during the transition from attacks to defense, and the like. A political maneuver is designed to recognize the ability to hold positions, is acquired in the process of implementing a particular political action, the necessary potential for implementation and achievement of the goal. In rationally organized political activity, maneuver is a constant consideration of emerging situations, and the ability to redistribute political forces, that is, to maneuver, which is typical for diplomatic activity, for those political forces that are trying not by military means, but by taking into account the general situation, the alignment of political forces, regroup them and reach politically elimination of anti-people regimes and the like. In political activity, it is necessary to be able to advance and retreat.

    The political offensive strategy, as a rule, provides for the adoption by political institutions of certain decisions on the offensive. A considerable political load is also carried out by political retreat. It is important to retreat in time in order to save strength and gain new energy, then go on the offensive and achieve success, and so on. Isolation and neutralization of opposition forces occupy a special place in political strategy and tactics. Isolation provides for a temporary cessation of the political activities of the opposition. Neutralization also provides for checking the possible change in other political resources, achieving the effectiveness of political activity. This is where political control matters. The concept of "the situation is controlled", common in political practice, means the localization of forces, which has the right to control the political behavior of the object, the stability of the state, which is in the spotlight. The key to the effectiveness of political activity is the organization of channels feedback with the object of political activity, etc. The content and purpose of the strategy and tactics is to influence the adoption and implementation political decisions in the political process.


    We also recommend