It probably wasn’t until I spent time in Malindi, Kenya, that I got a visceral sense of what it meant to be in the minority. My skin was far lighter, my hair was different and my clothes seemed out of place. I was a “mzungu” (white person). The people were quite kind yet I knew that most of the social adaptations would have to come from me. For a relatively brief time I felt what minorities must feel all the time when they live permanently with people different from themselves.

What does skin color and social background have to do with strategic or tactical thinking?

Only the recognition that the world is dominated by tactical thinking and a strategist will always be in the minority. “Minority thinking” means that most of the time the strategists must adapt to the tacticians rather than the inverse. It does not mean however that strategists are less valuable or needed. And it does not mean that strategy is unimportant. But a strategist that only masters strategic thinking without understanding how to act tactically will most likely fail (or at best succeed sporadically).

The critical implication is that a strategist has a particular requirement to speak two languages. First, there is the native language of strategy. Second, there is the foreign language of the majority that is primarily tactical.

Say something strategic to most tactical people and it would be like a Kenyan saying something in Swahili to me. Aside from “hakuna matata” (no worries) and a few other phrases, I would be lost. Similarly, when strategy encounters a tactical mindset, the strategist faces the likely outcome that they will be misunderstood unless they follow some simple rules.

Here are 5 powerful rules that can help guide a strategist’s behavior and translate their message.

In the never ending quest to define, explain and sell competitive intelligence, we sometimes resort to analogy. When the analogy is a familiar one, maybe our listeners will grasp that key fact that we have thus far struggled to express.

One example that we often use is armed conflict between nations. Wars are the ultimate human competition because the stakes are so high for many people. The problem with using it as analogy for business competitive intelligence is that the rules are clearly different. Ethics in business and war are not the same. Nations may justify actions during war time that an anathema to peace time life.

Another example that we can use is sports. The attractiveness of the sports analogy is that a “lifetime” is played out in plain view each season. All teams start with similar resources and the same record. Pitted against each other in a series of contests, the stronger teams emerge to contend for the title. There, superior systems collide to determine which will prevail. Nice and neat. Then it happens all over again.

Of course, business contests are not all that neat. Plus they usually occur with multiple, simultaneous competitors. The beginning and endings are not so clear cut. And, it is entirely possible that there will be more than one winner.

Okay, despite the caveats, there are good and bad lessons to be learned from American professional football.

In my day, I was quite the basketball player. My reputation was cemented on the backyard court where I dominated my two friends. They couldn’t beat me no matter what strategies they devised. Trying outside shots didn’t work. Driving to the left or right didn’t gain them any advantage. Tricky passes were futile against me.  There was nothing that they could do to win. I knew their game and the limitations of their ability because I studied them every day (the early days of my competitive intelligence career). That information let me anticipate and counter anything that they tried to do. Ah, the memories of the victories are still sweet.

Knowing what my friends could and could not do served me well in those halcyon days.

That leads to a present day business question. Wouldn’t you and I always want to know everything we could about our competitors? Surprisingly, the answer is “no.” Sometimes competitive intelligence is optional.

Here are 4 instances when competitive intelligence matters little or not at all (maybe).

By its nature as a service, Competitive Intelligence is a requested activity. That is, a senior management sponsor asks a question about the competitive environment and the CI professional responds. Many experienced people will tell you to stick closely to your senior management sponsor. And that would be right. Nevertheless, there will come a time when you (as the CI professional) will have the professional confidence and organizational credibility to lead.

This is the time to go on the offense with competitive intelligence.

“Going on the offense” simply means that you will begin to proactively formulate activities, plans and recommendations that are congruent with everything that you have already done. Assuming that you have laid the foundation properly, you should have a sense of the opportunities and boundaries within the organization. More than that, you have established relationships that allow you to speculate about the effectiveness of company strategy. Multiple leaders will have noticed your contributions and it will not surprise them that you can do more.

There are three important ways to proceed.