What makes good corporate strategy? Kenneth Mikkelsen interviews Roger Martin, Dean of Rotman School of Management about his book Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works.

1. Make
the
right
choices
to
create
a
winning
strategy
By
Kenneth
Mikkelsen
8
April
2013
What
makes
good
corporate
strategy?
Kenneth
Mikkelsen
interviews
Roger
Martin,
Dean
of
Rotman
School
of
Management
about
his
book
Playing
to
Win:
How
Strategy
Really
Works.
What
makes
good
corporate
strategy?
It’s
a
question
that
haunts
many
leaders.
This
article
explores
the
five
strategic
choices
that
helped
the
multinational
consumer
goods
company
Procter
&
Gamble
turn
things
around
after
a
serious
setback
in
2000.
I
interviewed
Roger
Martin,
the
dean
of
Rotman
School
of
Management,
about
his
new
book
Playing
to
Win,
which
Martin
co-­‐authored
with
former
Procter
&
Gamble
CEO
Alan
G.
Lafley.
On
7
March
2000
Procter
&
Gamble
(P&G)
sent
shockwaves
through
the
business
world
when
it
announced
that
it
would
not
meet
its
quarterly
earnings
targets.
On
what
came
to
be
known
as
‘Tide
Tuesday’,
P&G
lost
30
per
cent
of
its
share
value
in
one
day.
In
fact,
this
was
just
the
first
leg
of
a
journey
that
would
send
P&G
into
a
downward
spiral
propelled
by
a
growing
mistrust
among
investors.
In
June,
just
three
months
later,
things
got
worse
as
P&G
once
again
missed
its
projected
earnings
target.
As
a
result
Durk
Jager,
the
head
of
the
company,
resigned
with
immediate
effect.
Jager’s
replacement
was
Alan
G.
Lafley.
In
an
article
featured
in
Harvard
Business
Review
in
May
2009,
Lafley
described
the
situation
he
faced
as
the
new
CEO
of
the
company:
‘Our
biggest
problem
in
the
summer
of
2000
was
not
the
loss
of
$85
billion
in
market
capitalization.
It
was
a
crisis
of
confidence.
Many
of
P&G’s
leaders
had
retreated
to
their
bunkers.
Business
units
were
blaming
headquarters
for
poor
results,
and
headquarters
was
blaming
the
units.
Investors
and
financial
analysts
were
surprised
and
angry.
Employees
were
calling
for
heads
to
roll.
Retirees,
whose
profit-­‐sharing
nest
eggs
had
been
cut
in
half,
were
even
angrier.’
Even
though
Lafley
would
rightfully
challenge
the
cliché
of
a
CEO
in
shining
armour
who
rides
in
and
turns
things
around
all
by
himself,
the
numbers
clearly
speak
of
the
transformation
that
P&G
went
through
while
Lafley
served
as
the
company’s
CEO.
Under
Lafley’s
leadership
from
2000
till
2010,
P&G
sales
doubled,
profits
quadrupled,
market
value
increased
by
more
than
$100
billion,
and
its
portfolio
of
billion-­‐dollar
brands
–
such
as
Pampers,
Olay,
and
Gillette
–
grew
from
10
to
24
as
a
result
of
P&G’s
focus
on
winning
strategic
choices,
consumer-­‐driven
innovation,
and
reliable,
sustainable
growth.

2. Playing
to
win
The
story
of
P&G’s
metamorphosis
is
intriguing.
It
is
a
prime
example
of
a
successful
turn-­‐around
realised
through
a
set
of
strategic
choices.
But
P&G
was
not
alone
in
defining
these
choices.
The
company
drew
on
the
expertise
of
some
of
the
world’s
leading
academic
thinkers,
among
them
the
father
of
modern
management,
Peter
Drucker,
and
strategy
mastermind
Michael
Porter.
But
Lafley’s
day-­‐to-­‐day
strategy
alter
ego
and
confidant
was
Roger
Martin,
then
a
consultant
at
Monitor
Group.
Today,
he
is
dean
of
Rotman
School
of
Management
and
is
honoured
as
one
of
the
world’s
top
management
thinkers.
The
relationship
between
the
two
men
stretches
back
25
years.
Recently,
Lafley
and
Martin
wrote
the
book
Playing
to
Win,
which
tells
the
story
of
the
strategic
choices
that
founded
P&G’s
transformation.
I
sat
down
with
Martin
and
asked
him
to
share
some
insights
about
the
framework
that
transformed
P&G
and
made
strategy
a
part
of
the
culture
and
thinking
of
the
company.
‘Many
people
think
of
strategy
as
a
very
complicated
thing.
That
it
is
sort
of
a
chore,
in
as
much
as
it
is
not
very
enjoyable
or
useful.
The
purpose
of
our
book
is
to
make
strategy
simple,
fun,
and
effective.
I
don’t
want
strategy
to
be
complicated,
and
that
is
why
you’ll
see
phrases
like
“Where
to
Play”
and
“How
to
Win.”
They
are
not
convoluted
or
complicated
jargon;
they
are
simple.
By
making
it
about
choices
and
very
few
choices,
I
think
you
can
make
it
fun
and
enjoyable
to
consider
those
choices,
and
if
you
answer
those
choices,
you
can
have
a
great
and
effective
strategy.
In
doing
that,
what
we
wanted
to
do
is
hone
it
down;
if
it
is
about
choices,
what
are
the
very
few
choices
that
really
matter?’
Martin
explains.
In
Playing
to
Win
Lafley
and
Martin
talk
about
strategy
as
a
coordinated
and
integrated
set
of
five
choices:
identifying
a
winning
aspiration,
deciding
where
to
play,
working
out
how
to
win,
defining
core
capabilities,
and
recognising
what
management
systems
are
needed.
In
reality,
it
is
a
thought
pattern
that
people
can
use
to
see
the
bigger
picture
and
ask
the
right
questions
as
they
focus
on
important
strategic
decisions.
Strategy
is
an
integrated
cascade
of
choices
Smaller
companies
may
only
have
a
single
choice
cascade.
But
in
larger
companies,
there
are
multiple
levels
of
choices
or
nested
choice
cascades
at
the
corporate-­‐level,
sector-­‐level,
and
individual
brand-­‐level
that
all
interconnect
and
influence
each
other.
‘Strategy
would
be
dead
easy
if
you
could
answer
those
questions
one
at
the
time
and
lock
and
load
each
as
you
go.
The
only
tricky
thing
about
strategy
is
that
they
all
interrelate.
They
have
to
fit
and
you
have
to
reinforce
them,
which
makes
strategy
less
of
a
lineal
project,
but
rather
an
iterate
one
that
you
have
to
be
comfortable
with.
Put
up
a
winning
aspiration
and
say:
“This
is
what
we
think,
what
we
would
like
to
do”
–
and
then
figure
out
where
to
play,
how
to
win,
and
how
to
make
that
happen.
If
there
isn’t
clarity,
modify
it
and
keep
going
back
and
around,’
Martin
emphasises.
The
notion
that
strategy
is
a
way
to
reduce
uncertainties
in
a
fast-­‐paced
world
doesn’t
rest
well
with
Martin.
He
thinks
that
uncertainty
is
an
often-­‐used
excuse
among
executives
to
convince
themselves
that
they
are
doing
the
right
things
by
not
making
the
necessary
choices.
‘There
are
control-­‐oriented
people
who
really
want
it
to
be
true,
hope
that
it
is
true:
that
strategy
is
a
way
to
reduce
uncertainty.
It
is
like
pushing
water
uphill
–
it
is
always
hard
to
keep
water
at
the
top
of
the
hill.
So
go
with
the
flow,
instead
of
trying
to
get
rid
of
uncertainty,
understand
that
there
will
be
uncertainty.

3. That,
I
think,
is
a
more
healthy
approach.’
Winning
aspirations
The
five
basic
questions
outlined
in
Playing
to
Win
were
used
rigorously
to
guide
P&G’s
strategy.
In
June
2000,
when
Lafley
became
the
CEO,
the
company
was
over-­‐invested
and
overextended.
It
wasn’t
winning
with
those
who
mattered
most
–
consumers
and
customers.
According
to
the
authors,
the
first
question
–
What
is
our
winning
aspiration?
is
the
heart
of
any
strategy
and
sets
the
frame
for
all
the
other
choices.
A
company
must
seek
to
win
in
a
particular
place
and
in
a
particular
way.
If
it
doesn’t
seek
to
win,
it’s
wasting
its
resources.
But
to
be
most
helpful,
the
abstract
concept
of
winning
should
be
translated
into
defined
aspirations:
statements
about
the
ideal
future.
‘We
used
the
word
“winning”
because
we
really
feel
it
is
important
…
to
try
and
win.
Not
because
we
like
the
idea
of
beating
other
people;
it
is
not
some
joy
of
grinding
other
people
into
dust,
but
winning
means
that
for
the
customers
you
serve,
you
have
a
better
value
proposition
than
anybody
else.
That
doesn’t
mean
you
are
going
to
crush
all
your
competitors.
There
will
be
competitors
that
will
have
other
customers,
other
than
your
customers,
that
will
like
them
better
than
you.
And
that
is
absolutely
fine.
A
winning
aspiration
is
not
just
to
play
better
than
we
used
to
play,’
Martin
explains.
Playing
to
Win
tells
the
story
of
Olay,
a
skin-­‐care
brand
in
P&G’s
portfolio
that
was
struggling
in
the
late
1990s.
It
experienced
a
declining
market
share
and
was
broadly
perceived
as
old-­‐fashioned
by
consumers
–
until
P&G
decided
to
tweak
its
strategy.
For
Olay,
the
winning
aspirations
were
market-­‐share
leadership
in
North
America,
$1billion
in
sales,
and
a
global
share
that
placed
it
among
the
market
leaders.
Winning
aspiration
dos
and
don’ts
• Do
play
to
win,
rather
than
simply
to
compete.
Define
winning
in
your
context,
painting
a
picture
of
a
brilliant,
successful
future
for
the
organisation.
• Do
craft
aspirations
that
will
be
meaningful
and
powerful
to
your
employees
and
to
your
consumers;
it
isn’t
about
finding
the
perfect
language
or
the
consensus
view,
but
is
about
connecting
to
a
deeper
idea
of
what
the
organisation
exists
to
do.
• Do
start
with
consumers,
rather
than
products,
when
thinking
about
what
it
means
to
win.
• Do
set
winning
aspirations
(and
make
the
other
four
choices)
for
internal
functions
and
outward-­‐facing
brands
and
business
lines.
Ask,
what
is
winning
for
this
function?
Who
are
its
customers,
and
what
does
it
mean
to
win
with
them?
• Do
think
about
winning
relative
to
competition.
Think
about
your
traditional
competitors,
and
look
for
unexpected
‘best’
competitors
too.
• Don’t
stop
here.
Aspirations
aren’t
strategy;
they
are
merely
the
first
box
in
the
choice
cascade.
Where
to
play
The
choice
of
‘where
to
play’
defines
the
playing
field
for
a
company.
It
is
a
question
of
what
business
you
are
really
in.
It
is
a
choice
about
where
to
compete
and
where
not
to
compete.
Basically,
it
is
about
understanding
that
you
can’t
be
all
things
to
all
people
if
you
want
to
be
successful.
To
define
this
choice,
leaders
must
look
for
answers
in
various
domains
such
as
geography,
specific
products
and
services,

4. consumer
segments,
distribution
channels,
and
value
chains.
It
is
a
discipline
that
requires
a
steadfast
focus
and
a
thorough
examination
of
the
market
playing
field.
‘It
is
an
important
question
–
maybe
the
most
under-­‐recognised
question
in
strategy,
in
my
view.
Most
companies
seem
to
view
“where
to
play”
as
sort
of
ordained
by
God.
Like,
“Everyone
in
the
industry
plays
this
way,
therefore
we
shall
do
it
too”.
Many
of
the
cleverest
decisions
that
are
made
strategically
involve
picking
a
“where
to
play”
that
is
different
from
others
–
and
by
being
different
you
can
win
there.
In
the
case
of
Olay,
we
shifted
the
“where
to
play”
from
women
aged
50
and
above
seeking
a
wrinkle
treatment
to
women
aged
35–50
fighting
the
first
seven
signs
of
skin
ageing.
And
that
made
all
the
difference
in
the
world.
So,
those
“where
to
play”
choices
are
non-­‐trivial
and
can
make
a
big
difference,
and
they
are
subtle,’
says
Martin.
‘Where
to
play’
dos
and
don’ts
• Do
choose
where
you
will
play
and
where
you
will
not
play.
Explicitly
choose
and
prioritise
choices
across
all
relevant
where
dimensions
(i.e.,
geographies,
industry
segments,
consumers,
customers,
products,
etc.).
• Don’t
embark
on
a
strategy
without
specific
‘where’
choices.
If
everything
is
a
priority,
nothing
is.
There
is
no
point
in
trying
to
capture
all
segments.
You
can’t.
Don’t
try.
• Do
look
for
places
to
play
that
will
enable
you
to
attack
from
unexpected
directions,
along
the
lines
of
least
resistance.
Don’t
attack
walled
cities
or
take
on
your
strongest
competitors
head-­‐to-­‐head
if
you
can
help
it.
• Don’t
start
wars
on
multiple
fronts
at
once.
Plan
for
your
competitors’
reactions
to
your
initial
choices,
and
think
multiple
steps
ahead.
No
single
choice
needs
to
last
forever,
but
it
should
last
long
enough
to
confer
the
advantage
you
seek.
• Do
be
honest
about
the
allure
of
white
space.
It
is
tempting
to
be
the
first
mover
into
unoccupied
white
space.
Unfortunately,
there
is
only
one
true
first
mover
(as
there
is
only
one
low-­‐cost
player),
and
all
too
often,
the
imagined
white
space
is
already
occupied
by
a
formidable
competitor
you
just
don’t
see
or
understand.
How
to
win
‘Where
to
play’
and
‘how
to
win’
choices
complement
each
other
like
salt
and
pepper.
To
determine
‘how
to
win’,
any
organisation
must
decide
what
will
enable
it
to
create
unique
value
and
sustainably
deliver
that
value
to
customers
in
a
way
that
is
distinct
from
its
competitors.
This
is
what
Michael
Porter
famously
coined
as
a
company’s
competitive
advantage.
For
Olay,
this
resulted
in
a
complete
makeover.
The
‘how
to
win’
choices
were
to
formulate
genuinely
better
skincare
products
that
appear
to
fight
the
signs
of
ageing,
and
to
create
a
powerful
marketing
campaign
that
clearly
established
Olay
as
the
best
product
on
the
market.
This
also
involved
a
new
package
design
and
re-­‐calibrating
the
price
of
the
product.
‘“How
to
win”
is
about
creating
a
superior
value
equation
for
the
customer.
In
the
case
of
Olay,
the
“how
to
win”
was
to
create
a
masstige
experience
in
the
normal
mass
channel.
This
meant
creating
a
product
of
the
sort
that
customers
would
buy
for
a
high
price
in
the
prestige
channel
–
with
the
quality,
the
packaging,
and
shelf
presence
that
they
would
find
in
the
prestige
channel,
but
in
the
mass
channel,’
Martin
explains.

5. The
masstige
experience
that
Martin
refers
to
was
P&G’s
strategy
to
bridge
the
mass
and
prestige
markets
and
sell
Olay
in
discount
stores,
drugstores
and
grocery
stores,
rather
than
entering
the
prestige
market
and
selling
through
department
and
specialty
stores.
‘How
to
win’
dos
and
don’ts
• Do
work
to
create
new
‘how
to
win’
choices
where
none
currently
exist.
Just
because
there
isn’t
an
obvious
‘how
to
win’
choice
given
your
current
structure
doesn’t
mean
it
is
impossible
to
create
one
(and
worth
it,
if
the
prize
is
big
enough).
• But
don’t
kid
yourself
either.
If,
after
lots
of
searching,
you
can’t
create
a
credible
‘how
to
win’
choice,
find
a
new
playing
field
or
get
out
of
the
game.
• Do
consider
‘how
to
win’
in
conjunction
with
‘where
to
play’.
The
choices
should
be
mutually
reinforcing,
creating
a
strong
strategic
core
for
the
company.
• Don’t
assume
that
the
dynamics
of
an
industry
are
set
and
immutable.
The
choices
of
the
players
within
those
industries
may
be
creating
the
dynamics.
Industry
dynamics
might
be
changeable.
• Don’t
reserve
questions
of
‘where
to
play’
and
‘how
to
win’
for
only
customer-­‐facing
functions.
Internal
and
support
functions
can
and
should
be
making
these
choices
too.
• Do
set
the
rules
of
the
game
and
play
the
game
better
if
you’re
winning.
Change
the
rules
of
the
game
if
you’re
not.
Building
capabilities
Capabilities
are
the
map
of
activities
and
competencies
that
critically
underpin
specific
‘where
to
play’
and
‘how
to
win’
choices.
Without
them
no
strategy
will
succeed.
In
the
case
of
Olay,
that
meant
putting
together
a
team
of
people
from
both
inside
and
outside
the
company
with
cutting-­‐edge
expertise
in
packaging
and
marketing.
This
also
involved
forming
partnerships
with
designers.
‘This
question
relates
to
the
capabilities
P&G
needed
to
have
in
place
in
order
to
win
where
they
had
chosen
to
play,
and
to
meet
their
winning
aspirations.
In
that
case
we
had
to
develop
some
capabilities
on
producing
better
active
ingredients
that
allowed
us
to
compete
with
the
prestige
brands.
But
we
also
had
to
develop
capabilities
to
work
with
the
retailers
to
create
a
masstige
type
of
experience
in
those
stores,’
says
Martin.
The
choice
of
bringing
in
people
from
outside
P&G
wasn’t
just
practised
in
the
case
of
Olay.
As
CEO,
Lafley
challenged
the
company
to
reinvent
its
innovation
business
model
by
merging
P&G’s
internal
resources
with
outside
open
innovation,
referred
to
as
Connect
+
Develop.
At
the
time
P&G
estimated
that
for
every
P&G
researcher
there
were
200
scientists
or
engineers
elsewhere
in
the
world
who
were
just
as
good
–
a
total
of
perhaps
1.5
million
people
whose
talents
they
could
potentially
tap
into.
P&G
didn’t
just
‘do
the
math’,
they
also
acted
on
it
when
Lafley
proclaimed
that
half
of
the
company’s
new
products
would
come
from
P&G’s
own
labs,
and
half
would
come
through
them.
Implementing
that
approach
has
later
made
P&G
a
well-­‐documented
archetype
for
open
innovation.
‘What
Lafley
saw
in
that
capabilities
box
was:
“Wow,
do
we
ever
have
some
fantastic
capabilities,
but
we
also
have
significant
voids.”
So
what
do
we
do?
Do
we
build
all
of
them
ourselves
or
do
we
connect
and

6. develop
on
some
of
them?
Do
we
outsource
things?
That
really
was
an
obsession
about
him.
He
loves
P&G
and
he
loves
P&G
people.
But
the
thing
he
loves
least
is
when
they
get
closed
in
on
thinking:
“We
are
the
only
people
who
know
the
right
answer.”
He
can’t
stand
that
as
an
attitude,’
explains
Martin.
Building
capabilities
dos
and
don’ts
• Do
discuss,
debate,
and
refine
your
activity
system;
creating
an
activity
system
is
hard
work
and
may
well
take
a
few
tries
to
capture
everything
in
a
meaningful
way.
• Don’t
obsess
about
whether
something
is
a
core
capability
or
a
supporting
activity;
try
your
best
to
capture
the
most
important
activities
required
to
deliver
on
your
‘where
to
play’
and
‘how
to
win’
choices.
• Don’t
settle
for
a
generic
activity
system;
work
to
create
a
distinctive
system
that
reflects
the
choices
you’ve
made.
• Do
play
to
your
own,
unique
strengths.
Reverse
engineer
the
activity
systems
(and
‘where
to
play’
and
‘how
to
win’
choices)
of
your
best
competitors,
and
overlay
them
with
yours.
Ask
how
to
make
yours
truly
distinctive
and
value-­‐creating.
• Do
keep
the
whole
company
in
mind,
looking
for
reinforcing
rods
that
are
strong
and
versatile
enough
to
run
through
multiple
layers
of
activity
systems
and
keep
the
company
aligned.
• Do
be
honest
about
the
state
of
your
capabilities,
asking
what
will
be
required
to
keep
and
attain
the
capabilities
you
require.
• Do
explicitly
test
for
feasibility,
distinctiveness,
and
defensibility.
Assess
the
extent
to
which
your
activity
system
is
doable,
unique,
and
defendable
in
the
face
of
competitive
reaction.
• Do
start
building
activity
systems
with
the
lowest
indivisible
system.
For
all
levels
above,
systems
should
be
geared
to
supporting
the
capabilities
required
to
win.
Manage
what
matters
Operating
a
strategy
without
established
management
systems
and
supporting
structures
is
a
guaranteed
recipe
for
failure,
according
to
Martin
and
Lafley.
To
truly
win
in
the
marketplace,
a
company
needs
to
put
in
place
a
robust
management
system
in
order
to
foster,
support,
and
measure
the
strategy.
These
management
systems
are
needed
to
complete
the
strategic
choice
cascade
and
ensure
effective
action
throughout
the
organisation.
Martin
often
experienced
that
the
aspects
of
capabilities
and
management
systems
collide
with
the
positioning
strategy.
‘In
the
world
of
strategy,
there
is
this
big
war
between
the
capabilities-­‐orientated
people,
who
have
a
resourced-­‐based
view
of
a
firm,
and
the
positioning
people,
who
focus
more
on
the
“where
to
play”
and
“how
to
win”.
I
think
what
manifests
in
our
model
of
thinking
about
strategy
is
that
it
is
obviously
both.
The
fact
that
the
academic
world
spent
much
of
its
time
in
a
big
food
fight
over
which
it
is,
is
sort
of
indicative
of
the
siloization
and
compartmentalisation
of
complex
problems.
In
my
mind
you
just
cannot
be
an
intelligent
positioning
strategist
or
an
intelligent
capabilities-­‐based
viewer
of
strategy;
neither
of
those
are
possible.
You
actually
have
to
have
both
sides
if
you
want
to
be
an
intelligent
strategist,’
Martin
argues.
P&G
attacked
this
by
establishing
a
new
human
resources
approach
and
developed
detailed
tracking
systems
to
determine
consumer
response.
At
the
same
time
a
tremendous
effort
was
made
to
simplify
the
strategy
dialogue,
and
enhance
the
employees’
understanding
of
the
innovation
process.
This
involved

7. fostering
an
assertive
inquiry
culture,
where
people
not
only
expressed
their
own
thinking,
but
also
explored
the
thinking
of
others.
In
the
case
of
Olay,
the
five
choices
paid
off
as
it
grew
from
a
struggling
$800
million
brand
into
a
$2.5
billion
brand.
Management
systems
and
measures
dos
and
don’ts
• Don’t
stop
at
capabilities;
ask
yourself
which
management
systems
are
needed
to
foster
those
capabilities.
• Do
continue
strategic
discussions
throughout
the
year,
building
an
internal
rhythm
that
keeps
focus
on
the
choices
that
matter.
• Do
think
about
clarity
and
simplicity
when
communicating
key
strategic
choices
to
the
organisation.
To
get
at
the
core,
don’t
overcomplicate
things.
• Do
build
systems
and
measures
that
support
both
enterprise-­‐wide
capabilities
and
business-­‐specific
capabilities.
• Do
define
measures
that
will
tell
you,
over
the
short-­‐
and
long-­‐run,
how
you
are
performing
relative
to
your
strategic
choices.
Leadership
lessons
from
P&G
Having
worked
for
more
than
25
years
as
an
outside
strategy
consultant
for
P&G,
Martin
has
a
unique
understanding
of
what
others
can
learn
from
the
company’s
quest
to
embed
strategy
as
an
integrated
part
of
the
culture
and
way
of
thinking.
In
Martin’s
mind,
the
best
companies
constantly
focus
on
staying
relevant
in
the
eyes
of
the
customers
and
keeping
things
simple.
‘One
of
the
leadership
lessons
from
P&G
is
being
willing
to
tackle
things
in
a
holistic
fashion.
Locking
and
loading
on
something
and
then
moving
to
the
next
thing
and
the
next
thing
rarely
gets
you
what
you
really
want.
The
other
lesson
is
that
in
the
end
you
have
to
make
things
simple.
Organisations
do
not
win
on
the
basis
of
complicated
strategies.
Yes,
it
takes
some
complicated
thinking
and
willingness
to
have
a
bunch
of
balls
in
the
air
for
a
time.
But
in
the
end
if
things
aren’t
really
clear,
you
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
motivate
a
large
organisation
to
do
something
useful.
Using
really
simplifying
kind
of
catch
phrases
like
“the
consumer
is
boss”
and
“we
have
to
win
at
the
first
moment
of
truth”
along
with
“where
to
play”
and
“how
to
win”
were
very
important
in
P&G.
I
think
a
leader
needs
to
think
about
how
you
get
things
down
to
that
level
so
that
everybody
understands
the
consumer
is
boss
–
and
if
we’re
not
out
talking
to
her,
really
understanding
her,
and
listening
to
her,
we
will
never
win,’
Martin
outlines.
Challenging
the
way
leaders
think
is
a
common
thread
throughout
Playing
to
Win,
but
it
also
ties
in
with
previous
books
that
Martin
has
written.
Good
management
is
about
nothing
if
not
good
decision
making,
and
according
to
Martin
successful
business
people
engage
in
what
he
calls
integrative
thinking
–
the
ability
to
use
deductive
reasoning
to
extract
the
best
aspects
from
two
conflicting
ideas
to
come
up
with
an
alternative,
which
incorporates
the
strengths
of
both
ideas.
Integrative
thinking
is
a
prerequisite
for
making
sound
choices
as
a
leader
and
figuring
out
the
right
strategy.
‘There
is
a
theme
that
runs
through
all
my
books
–
in
Opposable
Mind,
The
Design
of
Business,
and
Playing
to
Win
for
sure,
which
is
about
how
we
think.
Sadly,
most
of
us
spend
our
careers
being
taught
about
how
to
problem-­‐solve
and
the
real
question
is
problem-­‐framing.
I
think
that
great
strategy
comes
out
of
people
having
an
opposable
mind;
not
settling
for
the
either/or
that
everybody
else
does;
aiming
for
something

8. high;
creating
something
that
does
not
now
exist;
and
understanding
that
their
job
is
not
just
to
choose
among
existing
options.
Those
are
the
big
pieces
of
the
puzzle
for
a
successful
executive,’
Martin
finishes.
About
Roger
Martin
Roger
Martin
has
served
as
dean
of
the
Rotman
School
of
Management
at
the
University
of
Toronto
since
1998.
He
is
an
adviser
to
CEOs
of
several
major
global
corporations
on
strategy,
design,
innovation,
and
integrative
thinking,
including
the
successful
Danish-­‐based
toy
company
Lego,
who
recently
announced
a
record
result.
He
has
published
numerous
books,
including:
Fixing
the
Game,
Bubbles,
Crashes,
and
What
Capitalism
Can
Learn
From
the
NFL,
The
Design
of
Business:
Why
Design
Thinking
is
the
Next
Competitive
Advantage,
The
Opposable
Mind:
How
Successful
Leaders
Win
Through
Integrative
Thinking,
The
Responsibility
Virus:
How
Control
Freaks,
Shrinking
Violets
–and
The
Rest
Of
Us
–
Can
Harness
The
Power
Of
True
Partnership,
The
Future
of
the
MBA:
Designing
the
Thinker
of
the
Future,
and
DiaMinds:
Decoding
the
Mental
Habits
of
Successful
Thinkers.
In
2013
Roger
Martin
placed
third
on
the
Thinkers50
list,
a
biannual
ranking
of
the
world’s
most
influential
business
thinkers.
You
can
download
a
free
chapter
of
Playing
to
Win
here.
Further
information:
Roger
Martin’s
website.