 |
|
|
|||||
If I were to grade the five boxes across every Strategy Choice Cascade that I have ever seen, the How-to-Win (HTW) box would get the lowest gradeeven lower than Enabling Management Systems, which is the least understood box. To remedy the weakness, I am dedicating this Playing to Win/Practitioner Insights (PTW/PI) to Why the How-to-Win Strategy Choice is So Hard: How to Overcome the Challenge. And as always, you can find all the previous PTW/PI here. Key feature of weak HTW choices I have talked extensively about the key weakness of HTW choices both in a previous piece in this series, From Laudable List to How to Really Win, and in my viral video, A Plan is Not a Strategy. The weakness is that the so-called HTW is in fact a list of initiatives, one that doesnt pass the key test of strategy: Is the Opposite of Your Choice Stupid on its Face? That is, it is a set of things that are utterly sensible but dont add up to a strategy that wins, and therefore wont compel desired customer action. Considered another way, it is a list of pixels, not a portrait. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/martin.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/Untitled-design-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his Substack at rogerlmartin.substack.com.","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogerlmartin.substack.com","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91412496,"imageMobileId":91412493}} This, by the way, is a core problem manifested in the popular strategy tool called the OGSMwhich stands for Objectives, Goals, Strategy, and Measures. As I have discussed before in this series, P&G is known for its use of the OGSM for strategy and since I am known for my longtime involvement with P&G, people think that either OSGM is my tool, or I am a proponent of it. Neither is true. I had nothing to do with the development of the tool, and I find it not to be a tool for good strategyespecially for HTW. In the classic OGSM, the S is a list of initiatives, generally called “strategies”a term I hate (which I explain in this piece)! I had to work hard (along with AG Lafley) at P&G to convert the S in OGSM to something usefuland related to strategy. Why is How-to-Win so weak? I think there are at least four reasons why HTW is so generically weak. Unhelpful Top-of-the-Cascade Choices Logically, Winning Aspiration (WA) and Where-to-Play (WTP) sit before HTW in the Strategy Choice Cascade. In this respect, they set the context for HTWand they generally dont set it particularly well. WA choices err in one of two unhelpful ways. First, WA is often unrealistic. We aspire to be the best IT company in world. We aspire to be the most innovative company in the world. For some companies, these may be fully realistic WAs for which there are entirely plausible HTWs. But for most, there is no plausible HTW for such an over-the-top WA, so whatever the company puts in its HTW box, it cant match with the WA. For example, if you are a modestly sized company, chances are that you wont be able to spend the resources necessary to be either the best IT or most innovative company in the world. Given the impossibility of the task, you will be lost in coming up with a robust HTW. The second error is a WA made up of vague, platitudinous statements. We aspire to be a caring company. We aspire to elevate the worlds consciousness. What do those even mean? These provide little or no context for the WTP/HTW choices that follow and are unhelpful to crafting a great HTW. With respect to WTP choices, they are unhelpful to HTW choices when they are unlinkedwhich is frequently the case. Far too typically, management contemplates WTP independently of HTW and picks the WTP that look most lusciousit is large, it is growing, it features high margins, etc. Unfortunately, that WTP inevitably looks luscious to many other competitors as well. Because of the intense competition for that luscious WTP, when it comes to determining a HTW for it, there simply isnt one for the company in question. There are lots of how-to-play options available to play like one of the other enthusiastic participantsand one of these blah options becomes the misnamed “HTW.” This sort of thing often happens with “fighting brands.” The scenario is that a differentiated player doesnt like the incursion of an effective low-cost player into its market that creates dramatic growth in the low-price segment of its market. So, it adds this segment to its WTP. But every single time I have seen this, the HTW is really a blah how-to-playand an unprofitable one at that. It is harder than the other four questions You have wide latitude of what you say on your WA. You can say practically anything. Similarly, for WTP, you can pick anything because with few exceptions, no one can stop you from playing in a place of your choosing. Must-have Capabilities (MHC) are not terribly hard to identify when you have done the first three boxesthough if you havent done them well, you will end up identifying MHC that you are incapable of building. And similarly, once you have identified your MHC, it isnt terribly challenging to identify the Enabling Management Systems (EMS) that you would have to put in place to build and maintain the MHC. But for HTW, there is a high bar. You must be superior to everyone lse in your chosen WTP to have a genuine HTW. That means developing a plausible theory for how you will be competitively distinctive. How-to-play is easy because it is a low bar. HTW is hard because the definition is tighter and more challenging. Management delusion The fact that it is hard leads to delusion when it comes to HTW. My friend and colleague Michael Porter often remarked that the dream of many executives is to do the same as every other company but get superior results. Sadly, like Mike, I have seen this often. There is a relatively widespread belief that if a company does the same things as competitors but just tries harder, it will earn superior and attractive returns. It would be nice if that were truebut it just isnt. The others try hard, too! Unhelpful supporting systems The systems outside the company that should support strong HTW choices dont. The capital markets generally mete out greater punishments for unique choices that dont work out well than they do for making no interesting choices whatsoever. They love blah sameness. Business schools dont teach students how to generate creative strategy choices but rather how to analyze data as a managerial technocrat. And strategy consulting firms do very little real strategy anymore because it is a much smaller and less profitable business than overhead cost reduction, post-merger integration, and digital transformation. Net, there is very little either encouragement or support for high-quality HTW choices in strategy. What to do about it There are four things that you can do to improve the quality of your HTW choices. Recognize the playing field Internalize the reality that the supporting systems arent supportive. Dont be discouraged by the reality. Recognize that the capital markets will be net negative, business schools unhelpful, and strategy consulting firms expensive and unhelpful. Recognize that you will have to build your skills with little outside help. This is the biggest reason that I write this seriesto provide practical help when there is little out there to be found. And drop the delusion. Dont waste precious time and resources on replicating competitors and hoping for terrific results. Such results arent just around the corner. Show restraint on the front end Dont believe that you can lock and load on your WA before proceeding to the other choices. Just develop a general idea of what kind of WA would be interesting and inspiring and then park it for further work and refinement when you have considered the other four choices. Dont ever make your WTP choice independently of HTW. I keep making this argument as strenuously as I can, including in this seriesOn the Inseparability of Where-to-Play and How-to-Win: Why Thinking about them Independently will Wreck your Strategy. The subtitle is not an exaggeration! Nonetheless, strategy teams still make lists of WTP and pick a luscious one before proceeding to HTW. As I have written previously in this series, there is lots of strategic leverage in WTP, but only if it is paired with a great HTW with each complementing the other perfectly. Buckle up for hard thinking Recognize that HTW is a tough task and buckle up. It doesnt just pop out of a slew of analyses. And it isnt the summation of a list of consensus initiatives. It is a theory of advantage: how we are going to perform sustainably better than competitors. It isnt easy to create a unique new theory. So, it is unlikely that you will get it on your first iteration. It will be a journey and not a quick or easy one. Remember while you are on that journey that a winding road is a feature, not a bugthat is, it is a feature of the development of a HTW worth having. Search along multiple vectors Dont jump quickly onto a single HTW theory. Source theories broadly and keep multiple theories in play. I have discussed three search vectorsanalogies, trade-offs and anomaliesin a previous piece in this series. Search across all three for unique HTWs. Dont worry at all if you havent got lots of data early on to support your theories. You dont want to kill possibilities early. They need to be nurturedand stress-tested ever more intensively over time using the Strategic Choice Structuring Process (laid out in the piece). Practitioner insights To be a great strategist, you need to master HTW. A strategy cant be great without a great heart of strategythe WTP/HTW combinationand of course that pair cant be great without a uniquely powerful and well-matched HTW. Done poorly, HTW undermines strategymaking it into a blah playing to play. And frankly, life is too short for you to waste years of your worklife playing to play. HTW is the hardest part of strategy. Help yourself by treating it as such. Impatience isnt helpful to you in creating a powerful HTW. Taking the necessary time is. Dont undermine your effort by setting the bar low to make the task easier. Set the bar high at a theory of sustainable advantage. Go broad before narrowing. Iterate before settling. You can do this! {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/martin.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/Untitled-design-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his Substack at rogerlmartin.substack.com.","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogerlmartin.substack.com","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91412496,"imageMobileId":91412493}}
Category:
E-Commerce
Multiple Twin Sisters Creamery cheese products have been recalled following an E. coli outbreak in Washington and Oregon. To date, two adults and one child have reported illnesses linked to the outbreak. On October 25, 2025, Twin Sisters Creamery recalled Whatcom Blue, Farmhouse, Peppercorn, and Mustard Seed varieties of its 2.5-pound round cheese wheels. The cheese wheels were sent to distributors in Washington and Oregon. Some products were further distributed to retail stores for repacking or sold as pre-cut, half-moon-shaped pieces. The products are made with raw, unpasteurized milk and may be contaminated with Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and Escherichia coli O103. Third-party testing of Farmhouse cheese samples confirmed the presence of E. coli O103. Whatcom Blue samples analyzed by the FDA and the Washington State Department of Agriculture tested positive for E. coli STEC. On October 26, 2025, Washington State-based food distributor Peterson Company recalled half-moon-shaped pieces of Farmhouse, Whatcom Blue, and Twin Sisters Creamery cheeses after Twin Sisters Creamery notified them of the three reported STEC infections. The FDA published the Twin Sisters Creamery and Peterson Company recall notices on October 27, 2025. Heres what you need to know. [Photos: via FDA] Which products are included in the recalls? The following Twin Sisters Creamery products have been recalled: 2.5-pound Whatcom Blue cheese wheels 2.5-pound Farmhouse cheese wheels 2.5-pound Peppercorn cheese wheels 2.5-pound Mustard Seed cheese wheels Roughly 5 to 6-ounce half-moon-shaped pieces of Whatcom Blue cheese Roughly 5 to 6-ounce half-moon-shaped pieces of Farmhouse cheese The 2.5-pound round cheese wheels were shipped to distributors in Washington and Oregon between July 27, 2025, and October 22, 2025. The cheese wheels may also have been further distributed to retail stores for repacking or sold as pre-cut, half-moon-shaped cheese pieces with different lot numbers and expiration dates. The recalled 2.5-pound round cheese wheels have the following batch codes: Batch Code 250527B Whatcom Blue Batch Code 250610B Whatcom Blue Batch Code 250618B Whatcom Blue Batch Code 250624B Whatcom Blue Batch Code 250603F Farmhouse Batch Code 250616B Farmhouse Batch Code 250603P Peppercorn Batch Code 250616M Mustard Seed The recalled half-moon-shaped cheese pieces were packaged in clear wrap and distributed to retailers and food businesses, including caterers, distributors, and restaurants, in Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington between August 14, 2025, and October 24, 2025. They have the following manufacturer codes printed or them or on a sticker: Item# 28855 Whatcom Blue MFG Code 793511 Item# 28855 Whatcom Blue MFG Code 781511 Item# 28855 Whatcom Blue MFG Code 775511 Item# 28855 Whatcom Blue MFG Code 761511 Item# 29608 Farmhouse MFG Code 765511 Item# 29608 Farmhouse MFG Code 752511 Item# 29608 Farmhouse MFG Code 738511 Item# 29608 Farmhouse MFG Code 726511 Do not consume the recalled products. Consumers who have purchased any of the recalled products should return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. If you have questions, call Twin Sisters Creamery at 360-656-5240 or Peterson Company at (800) 735-0313, extension 2101. Three infections linked to the E. coli outbreak There have been three reports of STEC infections caused by E. coli O103 to date, one in Oregon and two in Washington. One of the three reported infections involved a young child. An infected Oregon resident consumed Twin Sisters Creamery Farmhouse cheese before becoming ill. The Washington State Department of Health, Oregon Health Authority, and federal authorities are investigating the outbreak. E. coli can cause STEC infections You can get an STEC infection by eating foods contaminated by E. coli. Symptoms may include diarrhea, stomach cramps, or blood in the stool. Symptoms typically appear 1 to 10 days after exposure. The FDA recall notices explain that STEC infection can lead to Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), which is a life-threatening condition that can cause kidney failure and have fatal complications. HUS is particularly dangerous for young children, elderly adults, and immunocompromised people.
Category:
E-Commerce
UnitedHealth on Tuesday raised its annual profit forecast and said it aims to grow in 2026, in a sign that the turnaround efforts under new CEO Stephen Hemsley were gaining steam. Shares of the company rose more than 5% in premarket trading after the company reported better-than-expected quarterly earnings as the U.S. health insurer kept medical costs in check. The company had set a far lower profit forecast in July after suspending its prior outlook in May, which had sent its shares reeling. The healthcare giant now sees 2025 adjusted profit per share to be at least $16.25, compared with its previous estimate of at least $16.00, and above analysts estimate of $16.20 per share, according to data compiled by LSEG. “We remain focused on strengthening performance and positioning for durable and accelerating growth in 2026 and beyond, and our results this quarter reflect solid execution toward that goal,” said newly returned CEO Hemsley. Hemsley, who was at the helm of the company from 2006 to 2017, has been working to regain investor and consumer trust in the wake of an unexpected surge in medical costs and Americans’ anger at the high price of health care. He was brought in earlier this year as part of a management shakeup and has since replaced several long-time executives. UnitedHealth said it continues to see elevated costs, which the industry has been struggling with for more than two years. For the third quarter ended September 30, the company’s medical loss ratio the percentage of premiums spent on medical care stood at 89.9%, in line with the company’s expectations. Insurers aim for a ratio close to around 80%. Analysts on average had expected the company to report a ratio of 89.87%. Shares of peers CVS Health, Humana and Elevance rose about 2% before the bell. UnitedHealth’s quarterly revenue at its Optum health services unit was flat year-over-year at $25.9 billion. Revenue at Optum Rx, UnitedHealth’s pharmacy benefit manager, rose 16% to $39.7 billion, partly helped by higher prescription volumes. On an adjusted basis, the company earned a profit of $2.92 per share for the quarter, beating analysts’ average estimate of $2.79. Sriparna Roy and Sneha S K, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||