These stereotypes capture different things. Value comes from solving problems. Literally speaking. Customers pay you to solve their problems - and you only do so if you can solve the problems at an attractive cost (in its own a separate problem). Bigger problem usually means more value.
And over the long term, value is captured if there is an asymmetry protects you from competitive pressures. Simply because if you can create a lot of excess value, others will see the same opportunity.
Some markets are attractive even when all competitors are more or less similar (many software verticals). Some markets are only attractive if you are the winner.
It depends, and comes down to the cost structure and customer habituation - which tend to be industry specific.
The lifecycle is crucial, especially in the early stages. But I have never met a life cycle purist :D
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I agree with the mix of the first two and with an awareness of lifecycle is a good blend for a strategist. I think one caution on problem solving bit is about solving the right problem - a lot of companies are spending a lot of money on solving what they think is the problem but is not :)
I wonder if there is another type: Core competency builder. ASML, BMW, Aldi, … many companies are winning because they have build superior capabilities. They might not even call it „strategy“.
For sure. In Roger Martin’s strategy framework - capabilities is one of the 5 key elements of a strategy. Capabilities are the backbone on which execution rests
I enjoyed this breakdown. It is a fun lens to view how different strategist mindsets show up in the workplace. I’ve definitely seen versions of all three play out in office dynamics. The purist often clashes with short-term pressures, the realist becomes everyone’s go-to fix-it person and the life-cyclist gets sidelined if the organisation refuses to acknowledge its stage.
Makes you think how much of strategy is shaped less by logic and more by internal politics and emotional comfort zones.
Glad you had fun reading it. I can totally recognise your readings of the three characters. We are all personalities pushing and pulling each other at workplace :)
Strategy is only always one part of the story. In competitive advantage of everyday living. … markets have a way of life… true… but… When stakes are high it turns into war or anarchy.
Here is a small example think how powerful& power push too far…
Once upon a time long ago… India had fine cotton & silk weavers. Colonisers built machines, but the demand for hand woven was more… the colonists cut off the thumbs of the weavers for winning in the market. Now that reality still haunts how far derailed strategies can go.
But healthy competition does exist. Healthy ethical systems can be built. Most people push because ‘if we dont do it someone else will’ syndrome. Look at the debates around dna& dna editing& designed dna…. Its not just machines, but what horrors get unfolded…. Look what corona virus did…, wiped out millions of people… these are not just people… they are communities, business, towns, families, .. no one still knows how many children are still struggling& coping after losing people… we only hear from few…
Strategy… may be … how to save families, communities…? But that is not work place. The boundaries of work, state, home…. These exist. But digital systems of megalomaniacal order violates most. What can we call that? It sadly reminds me of weavers thumbs….
As you might expect by now, I'm a blend.
These stereotypes capture different things. Value comes from solving problems. Literally speaking. Customers pay you to solve their problems - and you only do so if you can solve the problems at an attractive cost (in its own a separate problem). Bigger problem usually means more value.
And over the long term, value is captured if there is an asymmetry protects you from competitive pressures. Simply because if you can create a lot of excess value, others will see the same opportunity.
Some markets are attractive even when all competitors are more or less similar (many software verticals). Some markets are only attractive if you are the winner.
It depends, and comes down to the cost structure and customer habituation - which tend to be industry specific.
The lifecycle is crucial, especially in the early stages. But I have never met a life cycle purist :D
My rambling 2 cents.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I agree with the mix of the first two and with an awareness of lifecycle is a good blend for a strategist. I think one caution on problem solving bit is about solving the right problem - a lot of companies are spending a lot of money on solving what they think is the problem but is not :)
Definitely.
Nice article that captures it well. Thanks
Thank you @Project Sunstone
I wonder if there is another type: Core competency builder. ASML, BMW, Aldi, … many companies are winning because they have build superior capabilities. They might not even call it „strategy“.
Interesting. Such good capabilities that you don’t even need a strategy. I guess that could work for a while, maybe early on in the lifecycle indeed!
Building superior capabilities IS central to great strategy. How those capabilities are combined is the source of strategic advantage isn’t it?
For sure. In Roger Martin’s strategy framework - capabilities is one of the 5 key elements of a strategy. Capabilities are the backbone on which execution rests
I enjoyed this breakdown. It is a fun lens to view how different strategist mindsets show up in the workplace. I’ve definitely seen versions of all three play out in office dynamics. The purist often clashes with short-term pressures, the realist becomes everyone’s go-to fix-it person and the life-cyclist gets sidelined if the organisation refuses to acknowledge its stage.
Makes you think how much of strategy is shaped less by logic and more by internal politics and emotional comfort zones.
Glad you had fun reading it. I can totally recognise your readings of the three characters. We are all personalities pushing and pulling each other at workplace :)
Strategy is only always one part of the story. In competitive advantage of everyday living. … markets have a way of life… true… but… When stakes are high it turns into war or anarchy.
Here is a small example think how powerful& power push too far…
Once upon a time long ago… India had fine cotton & silk weavers. Colonisers built machines, but the demand for hand woven was more… the colonists cut off the thumbs of the weavers for winning in the market. Now that reality still haunts how far derailed strategies can go.
But healthy competition does exist. Healthy ethical systems can be built. Most people push because ‘if we dont do it someone else will’ syndrome. Look at the debates around dna& dna editing& designed dna…. Its not just machines, but what horrors get unfolded…. Look what corona virus did…, wiped out millions of people… these are not just people… they are communities, business, towns, families, .. no one still knows how many children are still struggling& coping after losing people… we only hear from few…
Strategy… may be … how to save families, communities…? But that is not work place. The boundaries of work, state, home…. These exist. But digital systems of megalomaniacal order violates most. What can we call that? It sadly reminds me of weavers thumbs….