answered: Assignment 1 Begin this assignment by reading the 1996 article by Michael Porter titled “What Is

Assignment 1

Begin this assignment by reading the 1996 article by Michael Porter titled “What Is Strategy?” from Harvard Business Review, Volume 74, Issue 6, pages 61–79.

After reading through the article and the assigned readings during the first two weeks of the course, complete a thoughtful and balanced assessment of those readings by submitting a 2-3 page (not including title and reference pages) critical reading reflection. Review the rubric before final submission. Use the following prompts to guide your reading reflection: 

1) What parts of the readings stood out to you, and why?

2) How did the readings help you better understand or expand your knowledge related to strategy?  

3) What aspects of the reading were difficult or challenging, and why? 

4) How can what you read be applied to future situations in your professional career? 

5) How is strategic management beneficial to healthcare systems and organizations?

Your writing must be organized.  Introduce your topic and the point you plan to make about your experience and learning.  Develop your point through body paragraph(s), and conclude your paper by exploring the meaning you derive from your reflection. You may find the questions listed above can help you to develop an outline before you write your paper.

You should maintain a formal tone, but it is acceptable to write in the first person and to use personal pronouns.  


I. Operational Effectiveness Is Not Strategy

What Is Strategy r

For almost tv̂ fo decades, managers have been
learning to play by a new set of rules. Companies
must be flexible to respond rapidly to compet-
itive and market changes. They must benchmark
continuously to
achieve best prac-
tice. They must
outsource aggres-
sively to gain ef-
ficiencies. And
they must nur-
ture a few core eompetencies in the by Michael
race to stay ahead of rivals.

Positioning-once the heart of strategy-is reject- !
ed as too static for today’s dynamic markets and
changing technologies. According to the new dog-
ma, rivals can quickly copy any market position,
and competitive advantage is, at hest, temporary.

But those beliefs are dangerous half-truths, and
they are leading more and more companies down
the path of mutually destructive competition.
True, some barriers to competition are falling as
regulation eases and markets become global. True,
companies have properly invested energy in beeom-
ing leaner and more nimble. In many industries,
however, what some call hypcrcompetition is a
self-inflicted wound, not the inevitahle outcome of
a changing paradigm of competition.

The root of the problem is the failure to distin-
guish between operational effeetiveness and strat-

egy. The quest for productivity, quality, and speed
has spawned a remarkable number of management
tools and techniques: total quality management,
benchmarking, time-based competition, outsourc-

ing, partnering,
change manage-
ment. Although
the resulting op-
erational improve-
ments have often

E. Porter ^^^^ dramatic, many companies have
been frustrated hy their inability to

translate those gains into sustainahle profitahility.
And hit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management
tools have taken the place of strategy. As manag-
ers push to improve on all fronts, they move farther
away from viable competitive positions.

Operational Effectiveness:
Necessary but Not Sufficient

Operational effectiveness and strategy are both
essential to superior performance, wbich, after all,
is the primary goal of any enterprise. But they work
in very different ways.

Michael E. Porter is the C. Roland Chiistensen Professor
of Business Adminislralion at the Harvard Business
School in Boston, Massachusetts.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW N,)vt;mbt;r-D(.ct;mbi;r 1996 61



A company can outperform rivals only if it can
establish a difference that it can preserve. It must
deliver greater value to customers or create compa-
rable value at a lower cost, or do both. The arith-
metic of superior profitability then follows: deliver-
ing greater value allows a company to charge higher
average unit prices; greater efficiency results in
lower average unit costs.

Ultimately, all differences between companies in
cost or price derive from the hundreds of activities
required to create, produce, sell, and deliver their
products or services, such as calling on customers,
assembling final products, and training employees.
Cost is generated by performing activities, and cost
advantage arises from performing particular activi-
ties more efficiently than competitors. Similarly,
differentiation arises from both the choice of activi-
ties and how they are performed. Activities, then,
are the hasic units of competitive advantage. Over-
all advantage or disadvantage results from all a
company’s activities, not only a few.’

Operational effectiveness (OE) means performing
similar activities better than rivals perform them.
Operational effectiveness includes but is not limit-
ed to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices
that allow a company to better utilize its inputs by,
for example, reducing defects in products or devel-
oping better products faster. In contrast, strategic
positioning means performing different activities
from rivals’ or performing similar activities in dif-
ferent ways.

Differences in operational effectiveness among
companies are pervasive. Some companies are able

A company can outperform
rivals only if it can establish
a difference that it can preserve.

to get more out of their inputs than others because
they eliminate wasted effort, employ more ad-
vanced technology, motivate employees better, or
have greater insight into managing particular activ-
ities or sets of activities. Such differences in opera-

Operational Effectiveness
Versus Strategic Positioning

Relative cost position

This article has benefited greatly from the assistance
of many individuals and companies. The author gives
special thanks to Ian Rivkin, the coauthor of a related
paper. Substantial research contributions have been
made by Nicolaj Siggelkovi/. Dawn Sylvester, and Lucia
Marshall. Tarun Khanna, Roger Martin, and Anita Mc-
Gahan have provided especially extensive comments.

tional effectiveness are an important source of dif-
ferences in profitability among competitors be-
cause they directly affect relative cost positions
and levels of differentiation.

Differences in operational effectiveness were at
the heart of the Japanese challenge to Western com-
panies in the 1980s. The Japanese were so far ahead
of rivals in operational effectiveness that they
could offer lower cost and superior quality at the
same time. It is worth dwelling on this point, be-
cause so much recent thinking about competition
depends on it. Imagine for a moment a productivity

frontier that constitutes the sum of
all existing best practices at any giv-
en time. Think of it as the maximum
value that a company delivering a
particular product or service can cre-
ate at a given eost, using the hest
availahle technologies, skills, man-
agement techniques, and purchased
inputs. The productivity frontier can

apply to individual activities, to groups of linked
activities such as order processing and manufactur-
ing, and to an entire company’s activities. When a
company improves its operational effeetiveness, it
moves toward the frontier. Doing so may require
capital investment, different personnel, or simply
new ways of managing.

The productivity frontier is constantly shifting
outward as new technologies and management ap-
proaches are developed and as new inputs become
available. Laptop computers, mobile communica-
tions, the Internet, and software such as Lotus
Notes, for example, have redefined the produetivity

62 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996


frontier for sales-force operations and created rich
possibilities for linking sales with such activities as
order processing and after-sales support. Similarly,
lean production, which involves a family of activi-
ties, has allowed substantial improvements in
manufacturing productivity and asset utilization.

For at least the past decade, managers have been
preoccupied with improving operational effective-
ness. Through progratns such as TQM, time-based
competition, and benchmarking, they have changed
how they perform activities in order to eliminate
inefficiencies, improve customer satisfaction, and
achieve best practice. Hoping to keep up with
shifts in the productivity frontier, managers have
embraced continuous improvement, empowerment,
chan^t management, and the so-called learning
organization. The popularity of outsourcing and
the virtual corporation reflect the growing recogni-
tion that it is difficult to perform all activities as
productively as specialists.

As companies move to the frontier, they can often
improve on multiple dimensions of performance at
the same time. For example, manufacturers that
adopted the Japanese practice of rapid changeovers
in the 1980s were able to lower cost and improve
differentiation simultaneously. What were once be-
lieved to be real trade-offs – between defeets and
costs, for example – turned out to be illusions cre-
ated by poor operational effectiveness. Managers
have learned to reiect such false trade-offs.

Constant improvement in operational effective-
ness is necessary to achieve superior profitability.
However, it is not usually sufficient. Few compa-
nies have competed successfully on the basis of op-
erational effectiveness over an extended period, and
staying ahead of rivals gets harder every day. The
most obvious reason for that is the rapid diffusion
of best practices. Competitors can quickly imitate
management techniques, new technologies, input
improvements, and superior ways of meeting cus-
tomers’ needs. The most generic solutions – those
that can be used in multiple settings–diffuse the
fastest. Witness the proliferation of OE techniques
accelerated by support from consultants.

OE competition shifts the productivity frontier
outward, effectively raising the bar for everyone.
But although such competition produces absolute
improvement in operational effectiveness, it leads
to relative improvement for no one. Consider the
$5 hillion-plus U.S. commercial-printing industry.
The major players-R.R. Donnelley Sk Sons Com-
pany, Quehecor, World Color Press, and Big Flower
Press-are competing head to head, serving all types
of customers, offering the same array of printing
technologies (gravure and weh offset}, investing
heavily in the same new equipment, running their
presses faster, and reducing crew sizes. But the re-
sulting major productivity gains are being captured
by customers and equipment suppliers, not re-
tained in superior profitability. Even industry-

Japanese Companies Rarely Have Strategies

The lapanese triggered a global revolution in opera-
tional effectiveness in the 1970s anij 1980s, pioneering
practices such as total quality management and con-
tinuous improvement. As a result, Japanese manufac-
turers enjoyed substantial cost and quality advantages
for many years,

But lapanese companies rarely developed distinct
strategic positions of the kind discussed in this article.
Those that did – Sony, Canon, and Sega, for example –
were the exception rather than the rule. Most Japanese
companies imitate and emulate one another. All rivals
offer most if nt)t all product varieties, features, and ser-
vices; they employ all channels and match one anoth-
ers’ phint configurations.

The dangers of Japanese-style competition are now
becoming easier to recognize. In the 1980s, with rivals
operating far from the productivity frontier, it seemed
possible to win on both eost and quality indefinitely.
Japanese companies were all able to grow in an ex-
panding domestic economy and by penetrating global

tnarkets. They appeared unstoppable. But as the gap in
operational effectiveness narrows, Japanese compa-
nies are increasingly caught in a trap of their own
making. If they are to escape the mutually destmetive
battles now ravaging their performance, Japanese
companies will have to learn strategy.

To do so, they may have to overcome strong cultural
barriers. Japan is notoriously consensus oriented, and
companies have a strong tendency to mediate differ-
ences among individuals rather than accentuate them.
Strategy, on the other hand, requires hard choices. The
Japanese also have a deeply ingrained service tradition
that predisposes them to go to great lengths to satisfy
any need a customer expresses. Companies that com-
pete in that way end up blurring their distinct posi-
tioning, becoming all things to all customers.

This discussion of Japan is drawn from the authofs
research with Hirotaka Takeuchi, with help from
Mariko Sakakibara.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996 63


leader Donnelley’s profit margin, consistently
higher than 7% in the 1980s, fell to less than 4.6%
in 1995. This pattern is playing itself out in indus-
try after industry. Even the Japanese, pioneers of
the new competition, suffer from persistently low
profits. (See the insert “Japanese Companies Rarely
Have Strategies.”)

The second reason that improved operational
effectiveness is insufficient – competitive conver-
gence-is more suhtle and insidious. The more
henchmarking companies do, the more they look
alike. The more that rivals outsource activities to
efficient third parties, often the same ones, the
more generic those activities hecome. As rivals im-
itate one another’s improvements in quality, cycle
times, or supplier partnerships, strategies converge
and competition hecomes a series of races down
identical paths that no one can win. Competition
based on operational effectiveness alone is mutu-

ally destructive, leading to wars of attrition that
can he arrested only hy limiting competition.

The recent wave of industry consolidation
through mergers makes sense in the context of OE
competition. Driven by performance pressures but
lacking strategic vision, company after company
has had no hetter idea than to huy up its rivals. The
competitors left standing arc often those that out-
lasted others, not companies with real advantage.

After a decade of impressive gains in operational
effectiveness, many companies are facing dimin-
ishing returns. Continuous improvement has been
etched on managers’ brains. But its tools unwitting-
ly draw companies toward imitation and homo-
geneity. Gradually, managers have let operational
effectiveness supplant strategy. The result is zero-
sum competition, static or declining prices, and
pressures on costs that compromise companies’
ability to invest in the business for the long term.

II. Strategy Rests on Unique Activities
Competitive strategy is about being different. It

means deliberately choosing a different set of activ-
ities to deliver a unique mix of value.

Southwest Airlines Company, for example, offers
short-haul, low-cost, point-to-point service he-
tween midsize cities and secondary airports in large
cities. Southwest avoids large airports and does
not fly great distances. Its eustomers include husi-
ness travelers, families, and students. Southwest’s
frequent departures and low fares attract price-
sensitive customers who otherwise would travel hy
bus or car, and convenience-oriented travelers who
would choose a full-service airline on other routes.

Most managers describe strategic positioning in
terms of their customers: “Southwest Airlines
serves price- and convenience-sensitive travelers/’

The essence of strategy is
choosing to perform activities
differently than rivals do.

for example. But the essence of strategy is in the ac-
tivities – choosing to perform activities differently
or to perform different activities than rivals. Other-
wise, a strategy is nothing more than a marketing
slogan that will not withstand competition.

A full-service airline is configured to get passen-
gers from almost any point A to any point B. To
reach a large number of destinations and serve pas-
sengers with connecting flights, full-service air-
lines employ a hub-and-spokc system centered on
major airports. To attract passengers who desire
more comfort, they offer first-class or husiness-
class service. To accommodate passengers who
must change planes, they coordinate schedules and
check and transfer baggage. Because some passen-
gers will be traveling for many hours, full-service
airlines serve meals.

Southwest, in contrast, tailors all its activities
to deliver low-eost, convenient service on its par-
ticular type of route. Through fast turnarounds
at the gate of only 15 minutes. Southwest is able

to keep planes flying longer hours
than rivals and provide frequent de-
partures with fewer aircraft. South-
west does not offer meals, assigned
seats, interline baggage checking, or
premium classes of service. Auto-
mated ticketing at the gate encour-
ages customers to hypass travel
agents, allowing Southwest to avoid

their commissions. A standardized fleet of 737 air-
craft hoosts the efficiency of maintenance.

Southwest has staked out a unique and valuahle
strategic position based on a tailored set of activi-
ties. On the routes served by Southwest, a fuU-

64 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-Decemher 1996

service airline could never be as convenient or as
low cost.

Ikca, the global furniture retailer based in Swe-
den, also has a clear strategic positioning. Ikca tar-
gets young furniture buyers who want style at low
cost. Wbat turns tbis marketing concept into a stra-
tegic positioning is tbe tailored set of activities tbat
make it work. Like Southwest, Ikea has cbosen to
perform activities differently from its rivals.

Consider tbe typical furniture store. Showrooms
display samples of tbe mercbandise. One area
migbt contain 25 sofas; anotber will display five
dining tables. But tbose items represent only a frac-
tion of tbe cboices available to customers. Dozens
of books displaying fabric swatcbes or wood sam-
ples or alternate styles offer customers tbousands
of product varieties to cboose from. Salespeople
often escort customers tbrougb tbe store, answer-
ing questions and belping tbem navigate tbis maze
of cboices. Once a customer makes a selection, tbe
order is relayed to a tbird-party manufacturer. Witb
luck, tbe furniture will be delivered to tbe cus-
tomer’s home witbin six to eigbt weeks. Tbis is
a value cbain tbat maximizes customization and
service but does so at bigh eost.

In contrast, Ikea serves customers wbo are
bappy to trade off service for cost. Instead of baving
a sales associate trail customers around tbe store.

Ikea uses a self-service model based on clear, in-
store displays. Ratber tban rely solely on tbird-
party manufacturers, Ikea designs its own low-cost,
modular, ready-to-assemble furniture to fit its posi-
tioning. In buge stores, Ikea displays every product
it sells in room-like settings, so customers don’t
need a decorator to belp them imagine bow to put
tbe pieces togetber. Adjacent to tbe furnisbcd
sbowrooms is a warebouse section witb the prod-
ucts in boxes on pallets. Customers are expected to
do tbeir own pickup and delivery, and Ikea will
even sell you a roof rack for your car tbat you can
return for a refund on your next visit.

Altbough much of its low-cost position comes
from baving customers “do it tbemselves,” Ikea of-
fers a number of extra services tbat its competitors
do not. In-storc cbild care is one. Extended bours
are anotber. Tbose services are uniquely aligned
with the needs of its customers, wbo are young, not
wealtby, likely to bave cbildren (but no nanny),
and, because tbey work for a living, bave a need
to sbop at odd bours.

The Origins of Strategic Positions
Strategic positions emerge from three distinct

sources, wbicb are not mutually exclusive and
often overlap. First, positioning can be based on

Finding New Positions: The Entrepreneurial Edge

Strategic competition can be thought of as tbe
process of perceiving new positions tbat woo cus-
tomers from established positions or draw new cus-
tomers into the market. For example, superstores of-
fering depth ot’ merchandise in a single product
category take market share from broad-line depart-
ment stores offering a more limited selection in many
categories. Mail-order catalogs pick off customers who
crave convenience. In principle, incumbents and en-
trepreneurs face tbe same challenges in finding new
strategic positions. In practice, new entrants often
bave the edge.

Strategic positionings arc often not obvious, and
finding tbem requires creativity and insigbt. New en-
trants often discover unique positions that bave been
available but simply overlooked by established com-
petitors. Ikea, for example, recognized a customer
group that had been ignored or served poorly. Circuit
City Stores’ entry into used cars, CarMax, is based on
a new way of performing activities – extensive refur-
bishing ol* cars, product guarantees, no-baggle pricing,

sophisticated use of in-house customer financing –
that has long been open to incumbents.

New entrants can prosper by occupying a position
tbat a competitor once held but has ceded througb
years of imitation and straddling. And entrants com-
ing from other industries can create new positions be-
cause of distinctive activities drawn from their otbci
businesses. CarMax borrows heavily from Circuit
City’s expertise in inventory management, credit, and
otber activities in consumer electronics retailing.

Most commonly, however, new positions open up
because of cbange. New customer groups or purchase
occasions arise; new needs emerge as societies evotvc;
new distribution cbannels appear; new technologies
are developed; new machinery or informatiiin systems
become available. When such cbanges happen, new
entrants, unencumbered by a long history in tbe in-
dustry, can often more easily perceive tbe potentialfor
a new way ot” competing. Unlike incumbents, new-
comers can be more flexible because tbey face no
trade-offs witb tbeir existing activities. i

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW Nuvcmbcr-Deccmhcr 1996 65


producing a subset of an industry’s products or ser-
vices. I call this variety-based positioning because
it is based on the choice of product or service vari-
eties rather than customer segments. Variety-based
positioning makes economic sense when a com-
pany can best produce particular products or ser-
vices using distinctive sets of activities.

Jiffy Lube International, for instance, specializes
in automotive lubricants and does not offer other

Strategic positions can be based
on customers’ needs, customers’
accessibility, or the variety of a

‘s products or services.

car repair or maintenance services. Its value chain
produces faster service at a lower cost than broader
line repair shops, a comhination so attractive that
many customers subdivide their purchases, buying
oil changes from the focused competitor. Jiffy Lube,
and going to rivals for other services.

The Vanguard Group, a leader in the mutual fund
industry, is another example of variety-based posi-
tioning. Vanguard provides an array of common
stock, bond, and money market funds that offer pre-
dictable performance and rock-bottom expenses.
Tbe company’s investment approach deliberately
sacrifices the possibility of extraordinary perfor-
mance in any one year for good relative perfor-
mance in every year. Vanguard is known, for exam-
ple, for its index funds. It avoids making bets on
interest rates and steers clear of narrow stock
groups. Fund managers keep trading levels low,
which holds expenses down; in addition, the com-
pany discourages customers from rapid buying and
selling because doing so drives up costs and can
force a fund manager to trade in order to deploy new
capital and raise cash for redemptions. Vanguard
also takes a consistent low-cost approach to manag-
ing distribution, customer service, and marketing.
Many investors include one or more Vanguard
funds in their portfolio, while buying aggressively
managed or specialized funds from competitors.

The people who use Vanguard or Jiffy Lube are re-
sponding to a superior value chain for a particular
type of service. A variety-hased positioning can
serve a wide array of customers, but for most it will
meet only a subset of their needs.

A second basis for positioning is that of serving
most or all the needs of a particular group of cus-

tomers. I call this needs-based positioning, which
comes closer to traditional thinking about targeting
a segment of customers. It arises when there are
groups of customers with differing needs, and when
a tailored set of activities can serve those needs
best. Some groups of customers are more price sen-
sitive than otbers, demand different product fea-
tures, and need varying amounts of information,
support, and services. Ikea’s customers are a good

example of sucb a group. Ikea seeks
to meet all the home furnishing
needs of its target customers, not
just a subset of them.

A variant of needs-hased position-
ing arises when the same customer
has different needs on different occa-
sions or for different types of transac-
tions. The same person, for example,
may have different needs when trav-
eling on business than wben travel-

ing for pleasure witb tbe family. Buyers of cans –
beverage companies, for example-will likely have
different needs from their primary supplier than
from their secondary source.

It is intuitive for most managers to conceive of
their business in terms of tbe customers’ needs
they are meeting. But a critical element of needs-
based positioning is not at all intuitive and is often
overlooked. Differences in needs will not translate
into meaningful positions unless tbe best set of
activities to satisfy them also differs. If that were
not tbe case, every competitor could meet those
same needs, and there would be notbing unique or
valuable about the positioning.

In private banking, for example, Bessemer Trust
Company targets families with a m i n i m u m of
$5 million in investable assets who want capital
preservation combined with wealtb accumulation.
By assigning one sophisticated account officer for
every 14 families, Bessemer has configured its ac-
tivities for personalized service. Meetings, for ex-
ample, are more likely to be beld at a client’s ranch
or yacht than in the office. Bessemer offers a wide
array of customized services, including investment
management and estate administration, oversight
of oil and gas investments, and accounting for race-
horses and aircraft. Loans, a staple of most private
banks, are rarely needed by Besscmer’s clients and
make up a tiny fraction of its client balances and
income. Despite the most generous compensation
of account officers and the highest personnel cost
as a percentage of operating expenses, Bessemer’s
differentiation with its target families produces a
return on equity estimated to be the highest of any
private banking competitor.

66 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996

Citibank’s private bank, on tbe other hand,
serves clients with minimum assets of about
S250,000 wbo, in contrast to Bessemer’s clients,
want convenient access to loans-from jumho mort-
gages to deal financing. Citibank’s account man-
agers are primarily lenders. When clients need oth-
er services, their account manager refers them to
other Citibank specialists, each of whom handles
prepackaged products. Citibank’s system is less
customized than Bessemer’s and allows it to have a
lower manager-to-client ratio of 1:125. Biannual of-
fice meetings are offered only for the largest clients.
Both Bessemer and Citibank have tailored their ac-
tivities tu meet the needs of a different group of pri-
vate hanking customers. The same value chain can-
not profitably meet the needs of both groups.

Tbe third basis for positioning is that of seg-
menting customers who are accessible in different
ways. Aitbough their needs are similar to those of
other customers, the hest configuration of activi-
ties to reach them is different. I call this access-
based positioning. Access can be a function of cus-
tomer geography or customer scale-or of anything
that requires a different set of activities to reach
customers in the best way.

Segmenting hy access is less common and less
well understood than the other two hases. Carmike
Cinemas, for example, operates movie theaters ex-
clusively in cities and towns witb populations un-
der 200,000. How dues Carmike make money in
markets that are not only small hut also won’t sup-
port big-city ticket prices? It does so through a set
of aetivities that result in a lean eost structure.
Carmike’s small-town customers can be served
through standardized, low-cost theater complexes
requiring fewer screens and less sophisticated pro-

jection technology than big-city theaters. The com-
pany’s proprietary information system and manage-
ment process elimmate the need for local adminis-
trative staff beyond a single theater manager.
Carmike also reaps advantages from centralized
purchasing, lower rent and payroll costs (because of
its locations), and rock-bottom corporate overhead
of 2% (the industry average is 5%|. Operating in
small communities also allows Carmike to prac-
tice a highly personal form of marketing in which
the theater manager knows patrons and promotes
attendance through personal contacts. By heing the
dominant if not the only theater in its markets-the
main competition is often the high school football
team-Carmike is also able to get its pick of films
and negotiate hetter terms with distributors.

Rural versus urhan-based customers are one ex-
ample of access driving differences in activities.
Serving small rather than large eustomers or dense-
ly rather than sparsely situated customers are other
examples in which the best way to configure mar-
keting, order processing, logistics, and after-sale
service activities to meet the similar needs of dis-
tinct groups will often differ.

Positioning is not only ahout carving out a niche.
A position emerging from any of the sources ean be
hroad or narrow. A focused competitor, such as
Ikea, targets the special needs of a suhset of eus-
tomers and designs its activities accordingly. Fo-
cused competitors thrive on groups of customers
who are overserved (and hence overpriced) hy more
broadly targeted competitors, or underserved (and
hence underpriced). A broadly targeted competitor-
for example, Vanguard or Delta Air Lines – serves
a wide array of customers, performing a set of ac-
tivities designed to meet their common needs. It

The Connection v^ith Generic Strategies

In Competitive Strategy (The Free Press, 1985), I
introduced the concept of generic strategies – cost
leadership, differentiation, and focus – to represent
the alternative strategic positions in an in-
dustry. The generic strategies remain useful
to characterize strategic positions at the sim-
plest and broadest level. Vnnj;uard, for in-
stance, is an example of a cost leadership strat-
egy, whereas Ikea, with its narrow customer
group, is an example of cost-based focus. Neu-
trogena is a focused differentiator. The bases
for positioning – varieties, needs, and access – carry
the understanding of those generic strategies to a

greater level of specificity. Ikea and Southwest are
both cost-based focusers, for example, but Ikea’s focus

is based on the needs of a cust(mier group, and
Southwest’s is based on offering a particular
service variety.

The generic strategies framework intro-
duced the need to choose in order to avoid be-
cominj^ caught between what I then described
as the inherent contradictions of different
strategies. Trade offs between the activities
of incompatible positions explain those con-

tradictions. Witness Continental Lite, which tried and
failed to compete in two ways at once.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996 67


ignores or meets only partially the more idiosyn-
cratic needs of particular customer groups.

Whatever the basis – variety, needs, access, or
some combination of the three – positioning re-
quires a tailored set of activities hecause it is al-
ways a function of differences on the supply side;
that is, of differences in activities. However, posi-
tioning is not always a function of differences on
the demand, or customer, side. Variety and access
positionings, in particular, do not rely on any cus-
tomer differences. In practice, however, variety or
aecess differences often aecompany needs differ-
ences. The tastes-that is, the needs-of Carmike’s
small-town customers, for instance, run more to-
ward comedies. Westerns, action films, and family

entertainment. Carmike does not run any films

Having defined positioning, we can now hegin to
answer the question, “What is strategy?” Strategy
is the creation of a unique and valuable position, in-
volving a different set of activities. If there were
only one ideal position, there would be no need
for strategy. Companies would face a simple imper-
ative – win the race to discover and preempt it. The
essence of strategic positioning is to choose ac-
tivities that are different from rivals’. If the same
set of activities were hest to produce all varieties,
meet all needs, and access all customers, companies
could easily shift among them and operational ef-
fectiveness would determine performance.

III. A Sustainable Strategic Position Requires Trade-offs
Choosing a unique position, however, is not

enough to guarantee a sustainahle advantage. A
valuahle position will attract imitation hy incum-
bents, who are likely to copy it in one of two ways.

First, a competitor can reposition itself to match
the superior performer. J.C. Penney, for instance,
has been repositioning itself from a Sears clone to a
more upscale, fashion-oriented, soft-goods retailer.
A second and far more common type of imitation is
straddling. The straddler seeks to match the bene-
fits of a successful position while maintaining its
existing position. It grafts new features, services, or
technologies onto the activities it already performs.

For those who argue that competitors can copy
any market position, the airline industry is a per-
fect test case. It would seem that nearly any com-
petitor could imitate any other airline’s activities.
Any airline can buy the same planes, lease the
gates, and match the menus and ticketing and hag-
gage handling services offered by other airlines.

Continental Airlines saw how well Southwest
was doing and decided to straddle. While main-
taining its position as a full-service airline. Conti-
nental also set out to match Southwest on a num-
ber of point-to-point routes. The airline dubbed
the new service Continental Lite. It eliminated
meals and first-class service, increased departure
frequency, lowered fares, and shortened turnaround
time at tbe gate. Because Continental remained
a full-service airline on other routes, it continued to
use travel agents and its mixed fleet of planes and
to provide baggage checking and seat assignments.

But a strategic position is not sustainable unless
tbere are trade-offs with other positions. Trade-offs

occur when activities are incompatible. Simply
put, a trade-off means tbat more of one thing neces-
sitates less of anotber. An airline can choose to
serve meals – adding cost and slowing turnaround
time at the gate-or it can choose not to, but it can-
not do both without bearing major inefficiencies.

Trade-offs create the need for choice and protect
against repositioners and straddlers. Consider Neu-
trogena soap. Neutrogena Corporation’s variety-
based positioning is built on a “kind to the skin,”
residue-free soap formulated for pH balance. With
a large detail force calling on dermatologists, Neu-
trogena’s marketing strategy looks more like a drug
company’s than a soap maker’s. It advertises in
medical journals, sends direct mail to doctors, at-
tends medical conferences, and performs research
at its own Skincare Institute. To reinforce its posi-
tioning, Neutrogena originally focused its distribu-
tion on drugstores and avoided price promotions.
Neutrogena uses a slow, more expensive manufac-
turing process to mold its fragile soap.

In choosing this position, Neutrogena said no to
the deodorants and skin softeners that many cus-
tomers desire in their soap. It gave up the large-
volume potential of selling tbrough supermarkets
and using price promotions. It sacrificed manufac-
turing efficiencies to achieve the soap’s desired at-
tributes. In its original positioning, Neutrogena
made a whole raft of trade-offs like those, trade-offs
that protected the company from imitators.

Trade-offs arise for three reasons. The first is in-
consistencies in image or reputation. A company
known for delivering one kind of value may lack
credibility and confuse customers-or even under-

68 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW Novembet-December 1996

mine its reputation – if it delivers another kind of
value or attempts to deliver two inconsistent
things at the same time. For example. Ivory soap,
with its position as a basic, inexpensive everyday
soap would have a hard time reshaping its image to
match Neutrogena’s premium “medical” reputa-
tion. Efforts to create a new image typically cost
tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in a
major industry-a powerful barrier to imitation.

Second, and more important, trade-offs arise
from activities themselves. Different positions
(with their tailored activities) require different
product configurations, different equipment, differ-
ent employee behavior, different skills, and dif-
ferent management systems. Many trade-offs re-
flect inflexibilities in macbinery, people, or systems.
The more Ikea bas configured its activities to
lower costs by having its customers do their own
assemhly and delivery, the less ahle it is to satisfy
customers who require higher levels of service.

However, trade-offs can be even more basic. In
general, value is destroyed if an activity is overde-
signed or underdesigned for its use. For example,
even if a given salesperson were capable of provid-
ing a high level of assistance to one customer and
none to another, the salesperson’s talent (and some
of his or her cost) would he wasted on the second
customer. Moreover, productivity can improve
when variation of an activity is limited. By provid-
ing a high level of assistance all tbe time, the sales-
person and the entire sales activity can often
achieve efficiencies of learning and scale.

Finally, trade-offs arise from limits on internal
coordination and control. By clearly choosing to
ct)mpete in one way and not another,
senior management makes organiza-
tional priorities clear. Companies
that try to be all things to all cus-
tomers, in contrast, risk confusion in
tbe trenches as employees attempt
to make day-to-day operating deci-
sions without a clear framework.

Positioning trade-offs are perva-
sive in competition and essential to
strategy. They create the need for
choice and purposefully limit what a company of-
fers. They deter straddling or repositioning, because
competitors that engage in those approaches under-
mine their strategies and degrade the value of tbeir
existing activities.

Trade-offs ultimately grounded Continental Lite.
The airline lost hundreds of millions of dollars, and
the CEO lost his job. Its planes were delayed leav-
ing congested hub cities or slowed at the gate by
haggage transfers. Late flights and cancellations

generated a thousand complaints a day. Continen-
tal Lite could not afford to compete on price and
still pay standard travel-agent eommissions, hut
neither could it do without agents for its full-
service business. The airline compromised by cut-
ting commissions for all Continental flights across
the board. Similarly, it could not afford to offer the
same frequent-flier benefits to travelers paying the
much lower ticket prices for Lite service. It com-
promised again hy lowering tbe rewards of Conti-
nental’s entire frequent-flier program. Tbe results:
angry travel agents and full-service customers.

Continental tried to compete in two ways at
once. In trying to be low cost on some routes and
full service on others. Continental paid an enor-
mous straddling penalty. If there were no trade-offs
between the two positions. Continental could have
succeeded. But the absence of trade-offs is a danger-
ous half-truth that managers must unlearn. Quality
is not always free. Southwest’s convenience, one
kind of high quality, happens to be consistent with
low costs because its frequent departures are facili-
tated by a number of low-cost practices-fast gate
turnarounds and automated ticketing, for example.
However, other dimensions of airline quality – an
assigned seat, a meal, or baggage transfer – require
costs to provide.

In general, false trade-offs hetween cost and qual-
ity occur primarily wben there is redundant or
wasted effort, poor control or accuracy, or weak co-
ordination. Simultaneous improvement of cost and
differentiation is possible only when a company be-
gins far bebind the productivity frontier or when
the frontier shifts outward. At the frontier, where

Trade-offs are essential to
strategy. They create the need

for choice and purposefully
limit what a company offers.

companies have achieved current best practice, the
trade-off between cost and differentiation is very
real indeed.

After a decade of enjoying productivity advan-
tages, Honda Motor Company and Toyota Motor
Corporation recently bumped up against tbe fron-
tier. In 1995, faced with increasing customer resis-
tance to higher automobile prices, Honda found
that the only way to produce a less-expensive car
was to skimp on features. In the United States,

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996 69


it replaced the rear disk brakes on the Civic with
lower-cost drum brakes and used cheaper fabric for
the back seat, hoping customers would not notice.
Toyota tried to sell a version of its best-selling Co-
rolla in Japan with unpainted bumpers and cheaper
seats. In Toyota’s case, customers rebelled, and the
company quickly dropped the now model.

For the past decade, as managers have improved
operational effectiveness greatly, they have inter-
nalized the idea that eliminating trade-offs is a good
thing. But if there are no trade-offs companies will

never achieve a sustainable advantage. They will
have to run faster and faster just to stay in place.

As we return to the question, What is strategy?
we see that trade-offs add a new dimension to the
answer. Strategy is making trade-offs in competing.
The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.
Without trade-offs, there would be no need for
choice and thus no need for strategy. Any good idea
could and would he quickly imitated. Again, perfor-
mance would once again depend wholly on opera-
tional effectiveness.

IV. Fit Drives Both Competitive Advantage and Sustainability
Positioning choices determine not only which

activities a company will perform and how it
will configure individual activities but also how
activities relate to one another. While operational
effectiveness is ahout achieving excellence in indi-
vidual activities, or functions, strategy is about
combining activities.

Southwest’s rapid gate turnaround, which allows
frequent departures and greater use of aircraft, is
essential to its high-convenience, low-cost posi-
tioning. But how does Southwest achieve it? Part
of the answer lies in the company’s well-paid gate
and ground crews, whose productivity in turn-
arounds is enhanced by flexible union rules. But
the bigger part of the answer lies in how South-
west performs other activities. With no meals, no
seat assignment, and no interline baggage trans-
fers. Southwest avoids having to perform activities
that slow down other airlines. It selects airports
and routes to avoid congestion that introduces
delays. Southwest’s strict hmits on the type and
length of routes make standardized aircraft possi-
ble; every aircraft Southwest turns is a Boeing 737.

Fit locks out imitators by
creating a chain that is as
strong as its strongiest link,

What is Southwest’s core competence? Its key
success factors? The correct answer is that every-
thing matters. Southwest’s strategy involves a
whole system of activities, not a collection of parts.
Its competitive advantage comes from the way its
activities fit and reinforce one another.

Fit locks out imitators by creating a chain that is
as strong as its strongest link. As in most compa-
nies with good strategies, Southwest’s activities
complement one another in ways that create real
economic value. One activity’s cost, for example, is
lowered because of the way other activities are per-
formed. Similarly, one activity’s value to customers
can be enhanced by a company’s other activities.
Tbat is the way strategic fit creates competitive
advantage and superior profitability.

Types of Fit
The importance of fit among functional policies

is one of the oldest ideas in strategy. Gradually,
however, it has been supplanted on the manage-
ment agenda. Rather than seeing the company as
a whole, managers have turned to “core” compe-
tencies, “critical” resources, and “key” success fac-
tors. In fact, fit is a far more central component of
competitive advantage than most realize.

Fit is important because discrete activities often
affect one another. A sophisticated sales force, for

example, confers a greater advan-
tage when the company’s product
embodies premium technology and
its marketing approach emphasizes
customer assistance and support.
A production line with high levels
of model variety is more valuahle
when comhined with an inventory
and order processing system that

minimizes the need for stocking finished goods,
a sales process equipped to explain and encour-
age customization, and an advertising theme that
stresses the henefits of product variations that
meet a customer’s special needs. Such complemen-
tarities are pervasive in strategy. Although some

70 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996

fit among activities is generic and applies to many
companies, the most valuable fit is strategy-spe-
cific because it enhances a position’s uniqueness
and amplifies trade-offs/

There are three types of fit, although they are not
mutually exclusive. First-order fit is simple consis-
tency between each activity (function) and the
overall strategy. Vanguard, for example, aligns all
activities with its low-cost strategy. It minimizes
portfolio turnover and does not need highly com-
pensated money managers. The company distrib-
utes its funds directly, avoiding commissions to
brokers. It also limits advertising, relying instead
on public relations and word-of-mouth recommen-
dations. Vanguard ties its employees’ bonuses to
cost savings.

Consistency ensures that the competitive advan-
tages of activities cimiulate and do not erode or can-
cel tbemselves out. It makes the strategy easier to
communicate to customers, employees, and share-
holders, and improves implementation through
single-mindcdness in the corporation.

Second-order fit occurs when activities are re-
inforcing. Neutrogena, for example, markets to
upscale hotels eager to offer their guests a soap rec-
ommended by dermatologists. Hotels grant Neu-
trogena the privilege of using its customary packag-
ing while requiring other soaps to feature the
hotel’s name. Once guests have tried Neutrogena in
a luxury hotel, they are more likely to purchase it at
the drugstore or ask their doctor about it. Thus
Neutrogena’s medical and hotel marketing activi-
ties reinforce one another, lowering total market-
ing costs.

In another example, Bic Corporation sells a nar-
row line of standard, low-priced pens to virtually
all major eustomer markets (retail, commereial,
promotional, and giveaway) through virtually all
available channels. As with any variety-based posi-
tioning serving a broad group of customers, Bic
emphasizes a common need (low price for an ac-
ceptable pen) and uses marketing approaches with
a broad reach (a large sales force and heavy televi-
sion advertising). Bic gains the benefits of consis-

Mapping Activity Systems
Acfivity-system maps, such as tbis one for Ikea, show how a
company’s strategic position is contained in a set of tailored
adivities designed to deliver it. In companies with a clear

Explanatory –

displays and

Ease oF
transport a n d j

assembly ‘

kit packaging

by customers

Wide variety
with ease of


strategic position, a number of higher-order strategic themes (in
dark purple) can be identified and implemented through
clusters of tightly linked activities (in light purple).



with ample

likelihood of


design focused

on cost of



items in



sourcing from

iong term

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996 71

Vanguard’s Activity System
Activity-system maps can be useful tor examining and
strengthening strategic fit. A set of basic questions should
guide the process. First, is each activity consistent with the
overall positioning – the varieties produced, the needs served,
and the type of customers accessed? Ask those responsible for

each activity lo identify how other octivities within the company
improve or detract from their performance. Second, are there
ways to strengthen how activities and groups of activities
reinforce one another? Finally, could changes in one activity
eliminate the need to perform others?

Wary of
small growth


A brood array
of mutuol funds
excluding some
fund categories

tied to

cost savings

Very low

passed on to


funds due to
volatility and.

high costs


fees fo


for standard


Efficient investment
management approach

offering good, consistent
performance ^ ‘

Very low rate
of trading

Na marketing

Strict cost

to brokers or




No first<lass
travel for


Only three




client communication

and educotion

an bonds
and equity
index funds

about risk



on word
of mouth




tency across nearly all activities, including product
design that emphasizes ease of manufacturing,
plants configured for low cost, aggressive purchas-
ing to minimize material costs, and in-house parts
production whenever the economics dictate.

Yet Bic goes heyond simple consistency hecause
its activities are reinforcing. For example, the com-
pany uses point-of-sale displays and frequent pack-

The competitive value of
individual activities cannot be
separated from the whole. ; ;

aging changes to stimulate impulse huying. To han-
dle point-of-sale tasks, a company needs a large
sales force. Bic’s is the largest in its industry, and
it handles point-of-sale activities hetter than its ri-
vals do. Moreover, the comhination of point-of-sale

activity, heavy television advertising, and packag-
ing changes yields far more impulse huying than
any activity in isolation could.

Third-order fit goes heyond activity reinforce-
ment to what I call optimization of effort. The Gap,
a retailer of casual clothes, considers product avail-
ahility in its stores a critical clement of its strategy.
The Gap could keep products either hy holding

store inventory or by restocking
from warehouses. The Gap has opti-

‘ mized its effort across these activi-
ties hy restocking its selection of ha-
sic clothing almost daily out of three
warehouses, therehy minimizing the

I need to carry large in-store invento-
.. I ries. The emphasis is on restocking

hecause the Gap’s merchandising
strategy sticks to hasic items in relatively few col-
ors. While comparahle retailers achieve turns of
three to four times per year, the Gap turns its inven-
tory seven and a half times per year. Rapid restock-
ing, moreover, reduces the cost of implementing

71 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996


the Gap’s short model cycle, which is six to eight
weeks long.’

Coordination and information exchange across
activities to eliminate redundancy and ininimize
wasted ctfort are the most hasic types of effort opti-
mization. But there are higher levels as well. Prod-
uct design choices, for example, can eliminate the
need for after-sale service or make it possible for
customers to perform service activities them-
selves. Similarly, coordination with suppliers or
distribution channels can eliminate the need for
some in-house activities, such as end-user training.

In all three types of fit, the whole matters more
than any individual part. Competitive advantage
grows out of the entire system of activities. The fit
among activities substantially reduces cost or in-
creases differentiation. Beyond that, the competi-
tive value of individual activities-or the associated
skills, competencies, or resources – cannot be de-
coupled from the system or the strategy. Thus in
competitive companies it can be misleading to ex-
plain success by specifying individual strengths,

core competeneies, or critical resources. The list of
strengths cuts across many functions, and one
strength blends into others. It is more useful to
think in terms of themes that pervade many activi-
ties, such as low cost, a particular notion of cus-
tomer service, or a particular conception of the
value delivered. These themes are embodied in
nests of tightly linked activities.

Fit and Sustalnability
Strategic fit among many activities is fundamen-

tal not only to competitive advantage but also to
the sustainability of that advantage. It is harder for
a rival to match an array of interlocked activities
than it is merely to imitate a particular sales-foree
approach, match a process technology, or replicate
a set of product features. Positions built on systems
of aetivities are far more sustainable than those
built on individual aetivities.

Consider this simple exercise. The probahility
that competitors can match any activity is often

Southwest Airlines’ Activity System

No baggage I
transfers I

• • M ^

No seat

wilh other


Limited use
of travel
agents Standard izGci

fleet of 737



of employees

the low-fare


High level
of employee





less than one. The probabilities then quickly com-
pound to make matching the entire system highly
unlikely (.9x.9= .81; .9x.9x.9x.9= .66, and so on).
Existing companies that try to reposition or strad-
dle will he forced to reconfigure many activities.

Strategic positions should have
a horizon of a decade or more,
not of a single planning cycle.
And even new entrants, though they do not con-
front the trade-offs facing estahlished rivals, still
face formidahle harriers to imitation.

The more a company’s positioning rests on activ-
ity systems with second- and third-order fit, the
more sustainahle its advantage will he. Such sys-
tems, hy their very nature, are usually difficult to
untangle from outside the company and therefore
hard to imitate. And even if rivals can identify the
relevant interconnections, they will have difficulty
replicating them. Achieving fit is difficult hecause
it requires the integration of decisions and actions
across many independent suhunits.

A competitor seeking to match an activity sys-
tem gains little by imitating only some activities
and not matching the whole. Performance does not
improve; it can decline. Recall Continental Lite’s
disastrous attempt to imitate Southwest.

Finally, fit among a company’s activities creates
pressures and incentives to improve operational
effectiveness, which makes imitation even harder.
Fit means that poor performance in one activity
will degrade the performance in others, so that
weaknesses are exposed and more prone to get at-

tention. Conversely, improvements in one activity
will pay dividends in others. Companies with
strong fit among their activities are rarely inviting
targets. Their superiority in strategy and in execu-
tion only compounds their advantages and raises

the hurdle for imitators.
When activities complement one

another, rivals will get httle henefit
from imitation unless they success-
fully match the whole system. Such
situations tend to promote winner-
take-all competition. The company
that huilds the hest activity system-
Toys R Us, for instance-wins, while

rivals with similar strategies-Child World and Li-
onel Leisure-fall behind. Thus finding a new stra-
tegic position is often preferable to heing the second
or third imitator of an occupied position.

The most viahle positions are those whose ac-
tivity systems are incompatihle because of trade-
offs. Strategic positioning sets the trade-off rules
that define how individual activities will he con-
figured and integrated. Seeing strategy in terms of
activity systems only makes it clearer why organi-
zational structure, systems, and processes need to
he strategy-specific. Tailoring organization to strat-
egy, in turn, makes complementarities more achiev-
able and contributes to sustainahility.

One implication is that strategic positions
should have a horizon of a decade or more, not of a
single planning cycle. Continuity fosters improve-
ments in individual activities and the fit across ac-
tivities, allowing an organization to huild unique
capabilities and skills tailored to its strategy. Conti-
nuity also reinforces a company’s identity.

Conversely, frequent shifts in positioning are
costly. Not only must a company reconfigure indi-
vidual activities, hut it must aiso realign entire sys-

Alternative Vievŝ s of Strategy

The Implicit Strategy Model of the Past Decade

_ One ideal competitive position in the industry
– Benchmarking of all activities and achieving best

Aggressive outsourcing and partnering to gain

Advantages rest on a few key success factors,
critical resources, core competencies
. Flexibility and rapid responses to all competitive
and market changes

Sustainable Competitive Advantage

I Unique competitive position tor the company
J Activities tailored to strategy
J Clear trade-offs and choices vis-^-vis competitor!
I Competitive advantage arises from fit across

Sustainability conies from tbe activity system,

not tbe parts
‘ Operational effectiveness a given

74 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996

tcms. Some activities may never catch up to the
vacillating strategy. The inevitable result of fre-
quent shifts in strategy, or of failure to choose a dis-
tinct position in the first place, is “me-too” or
hedged activity configurations, inconsistencies
across functions, and organizational dissonance.

What is strategy- We can now complete the an-
swer to this question. Strategy is creating fit among

a company’s activities. The success of a strategy
depends on doing many things well-not just a few-
and integrating among them. If there is no fit
among activities, there is no distinctive strategy
and little sustainahility. Management reverts to the
simpler task of overseeing independent functions,
and operational effectiveness determines an organi-
zation’s relative performance.

V. Rediscovering Strategy
The Failure to Choose

why do so many companies fail to have a strat-
egy? Why do managers avoid making strategic
choices? Or, having made them in the past, why do
managers so often let strategies decay and blur?

Commonly, the threats to strategy are seen to
emanate from outside a company because of
changes in technology or the behavior of competi-
tors. Although external changes can he the proh-
lem, the greater threat to strategy often comes from
within. A sound strategy is undermined hy a mis-
guided view of competition, by organizational fail-
ures, and, especially, by the desire to grow.

Managers have become confused about the ne-
cessity of making choices. When many companies
operate far from the productivity frontier, trade-offs
appear unnecessary. It can seem that a well-run
company should he able to beat its ineffective rivals
on all dimensions simultaneously. Taught hy popu-
lar management thinkers that they do not have to
make trade-offs, managers have acquired a macho
sense that to do so is a sign of weakness.

Unnerved by forecasts of hypercompetition,
managers increase its likelihood by imitating
everything about their competitors. Exhorted to
think in terms of revolution, managers chase every
new tecbnology for its own sake.

The pursuit of operational effectiveness is seduc-
tive hecause it is concrete and actionahle. Over the
past decade, managers have been under increasing
pressure to deliver tangible, measurable perfor-
mance improvements. Programs in operational ef-
fectiveness produce reassuring progress, although
superior profitability may remain elusive. Business
publications and consultants flood the market with
information about what other companies are doing,
reinforcing the best-praetice mentality. Caught up
in the race for operational effectiveness, many
managers simply do not understand the need to
h;ive a strategy.

Companies avoid or hlur strategic choices for
other reasons as well. Conventional wisdom within
an industry is often strong, homogenizing competi-
tion. Some managers mistake “customer focus” to
mean they must serve all customer needs or re-
spond to every request from distribution channels.
Others cite the desire to preserve flexihility.

Organizational realities also work against strate-
gy. Trade-offs are frightening, and making no choice
is sometimes preferred to risking blame for a bad
choice. Companies imitate one another in a type
of herd hehavior, each assuming rivals know some-
thing they do not. Newly empowered employees,
who are urged to seek every possihle source of im-
provement, often lack a vision of the whole and
the perspective to recognize trade-offs. The faiiure
to choose sometimes eomes down to the reluctance
to disappoint valued managers or employees.

The Growth Trap

Among all other influences, the desire to grow
has perhaps the most perverse effeet on strategy.
Trade-offs and limits appear to constrain growth.
Serving one group of customers and excluding oth-
ers, for instance, places a real or imagined limit on
revenue growth. Broadly targeted strategies empha-
sizing low price result in lost sales with customers
sensitive to features or service. Differentiators lose
sales to price-sensitive customers.

Managers are constantly tempted to take incre-
mental steps that surpass those limits but blur a
company’s strategic position. Eventually, pressures
to grow or apparent saturation of the target market
lead managers to broaden the position hy extending
product lines, adding new features, imitating com-
petitors’ popular services, matching processes, and
even making acquisitions. For years, Maytag Cor-
poration’s success was based on its focus on reli-
able, durable washers and dryers, later extended to
include dishwashers. However, conventional wis-

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996 75

Reconnecting v^ith Strategy

Most companies owe their initial success to a
unique strategic position involving clear trade-offs.
Activities once were aligned with that position. The
passage of time and the pressures of growth, however,
led to compromises that were, at first, almost imper-
c e p t i b l e . Through a succession of i n c r e m e n t a l
changes that eaeh seemed sensible at the time, many
established companies have compromised their way
to homogeneity with their rivals.

The issue here is not with the companies whose his-
torical position is no longer viable; their challenge is
to start over, just as a new entrant would. At issue is a
far more common phenomenon: the established com-
pany achieving medioere returns and lacking a clear
strategy. Through incremental additions of product
varieties, incremental efforts to serve new customer
groups, and emulation of rivals’ activities, the existing
company loses its clear competitive position. Typical-
ly, the company has matched many of its competitors’
offerings and practices and attempts to sell to most
customer groups.

A number of approaches can help a company recon-
nect with strategy. The first is a eareful look at what it
already does. Within most well-established compa-
nies is a core of uniqueness. It is identified by answer-
ing questions sueh as the following:
D Which of our product or service varieties are the
most distinctive ?

n Which of our product or service varieties are the
most profitable?
D Which of our customers are the most satisfied?
n which eustomers, ehannels, or purchase occasions
are the most profitable?
n Which ot the activities in our value chain are the
most different and effective?

Around this eore of uniqueness are encrustations
added incrementally over time. Like barnacles, they
must be removed to reveal the underlying strategic po-
sitioning. A small percentage of varieties or customers
may well account for most of a company’s sales and es-
pecially its profits. The challenge, then, is to refocus
on the unique core and realign the company’s activi-
ties with it. Customers and product varieties at the
periphery can be sold or allowed through inattention
or price increases to fade away.

A company’s history can also be instructive. What
was the vision of the founder? What were the products
and customers that made the company? Looking back-
ward, one ean reexaminc the original strategy to .see if
it is still valid. Can the historical positioning be im-
plemented in a modern way, one consistent with to-
day’s technologies and practices? This sort of thinking
may lead to a commitment to renew the strategy and
may chaiienge the organization to recover its distinc-
tiveness. Such a challenge can be galvanizing and can
instill the confidence to make the needed trade-offs.

dom emerging within the industry supported the
notion of selling a full line of products. Concerned
with slow industry growth and competition from
broad-line appliance makers, Maytag was pressured
by dealers and encouraged by customers to extend
its line. Maytag expanded into refrigerators and
cooking products under the Maytag brand and ac-
quired other brands – Jenn-Air, Hardwick Stove,
Hoover, Admiral, and Magic Chef – with disparate
positions. Maytag has grown substantially from
$684 million in 1985 to a peak of $3.4 billion in
1994, but return on sales has declined from 8% to
12% in the 1970s and 1980s to an average of less
tban 1% between 1989 and 1995. Cost cutting will
improve this performance, but laundry and dish-
washer products still anchor Maytag’s profitability.

Neutrogena may bave fallen into the same trap.
In the early 1990s, its U.S. distribution broadened
to include mass merchandisers such as Wal-Mart
Stores. Under the Neutrogena name, tbe company
expanded into a wide variety of products – eye-

makeup remover and shampoo, for example – in ]
which it was not unique and which diluted its im-
age, and it began turning to price promotions.

Compromises and inconsistencies in tbe pursuit
of growtb will erode tbe competitive advantage a
company had with its original varieties or target
customers. Attempts to compete in several ways at
once create confusion and undermine organization-
al motivation and focus. Profits fall, but more rev-
enue is seen as the answer. Managers are unable to
make choices, so tbe company embarks on a new
round of broadening and compromises. Often, ri-
vals continue to matcb each otber until desperation
breaks tbe cycle, resulting in a merger or downsiz-
ing to the original positioning.

Profitable Growth
Many companies, after a decade of restructuring

and cost-cutting, are turning tbeir attention to
growth. Too often, efforts to grow blur uniqueness.

76 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996


create compromises, reduce fit, and ultimately un-
dermine competitive advantage. In tact, the growth
imperative is hazardous to strategy.

What approaches to growth preserve and rein-
force strategy? Broadly, the prescription is to con-
centrate on deepening a strategic position rather
than hroadening and compromising it. One ap-
proach is to look for extensions of the strategy that
leverage the existing activity system hy offering
features or services that rivals would find impossi-
ble or costly to match on a stand-alone basis. In oth-
er words, managers can ask themselves which ac-
tivities, features, or forms of competition are
feasihlc or less costly to them because of comple-
mentary activities that their company performs.

Deepening a position involves making the com-
pany’s activities more distinctive, strengthening
fit, and communicating the strategy hetter to those
customers who should value it. But many compa-
nies suecumh to the temptation to chase “easy”
growth hy adding hot features, products, or services
without screening them or adapting them to their
strategy. Or they target new customers or markets
in which the company has little special to offer. A
company can often grow faster-and far more prof-
itahly – hy hetter penetrating needs and varieties
where it is distinctive than by slugging it out in po-
tentially higher growth arenas in whieh the com-
pany lacks uniqueness. Carmike, now the largest
theater chain in the United States, owes its rapid
growth to its disciplined concentration on small
markets. The company quickly sells any hig-city
theaters that come to it as part of an acquisition.

Globalization often allows growth that is consis-
tent with strategy, opening up larger markets for a
focused strategy. Unlike broadening domestically.

At general management’s core is
strategy: defining a company’s
position, making trade-offs, and
forging fit among activities.

expanding globally is likely to leverage and rein-
force a company’s unique position and identity.

Companies seeking growth through hroadening
within their industry can best contain the risks to
strategy by creating stand-alone units, each with its
own hrand name and tailored activities. Maytag has
clearly struggled with this issue. On the one hand,
it has organized its premium and value hrands into

separate units witb different strategic positions.
On the otber, it has created an umbrella appliance
company for all its brands to gain critical mass.
With shared design, manufacturing, distrihution,
and customer service, it will he hard to avoid ho-
mogenization. If a given husiness unit attempts to
compete with different positions for different prod-
ucts or customers, avoiding compromise is nearly

The Role of Leadership
The challenge of developing or reestablishing a

clear strategy is often primarily an organizational
one and depends on leadership. With so many
forces at work against making choices and trade-
offs in organizations, a clear intellectual framework
to guide strategy is a necessary counterweight.
Moreover, strong leaders willing to make choices
are essential.

In many companies, leadership has degenerated
into orchestrating operational improvements and
making deals. But the leader’s role is hroader and far
more important. Ceneral management is more
than the stewardship of individual functions. Its
core is strategy: defining and communicating the
company’s unique position, making trade-offs, and
forging fit among activities. The leader must pro-
vide the discipline to decide which i n d u s t r y
changes and customer needs the company will re-
spond to, while avoiding organizationai distrac-
tions and maintaining the company’s distinctive-
ness. Managers at lower levels lack the perspective
and the confidence to maintain a strategy. There
will he constant pressures to compromise, relax
trade-offs, and emulate rivals. One of the leader’s

jobs is to teach others in the organi-
zation ahout strategy-and to say no.

Strategy renders choices ahout
w h a t n o t to do as i m p o r t a n t as
choices about what to do. Indeed,
setting limits is another function of
leadership. Deciding which target
group of customers, varieties, and
needs the company should serve is
fundamental to developing a strat-
egy. But so is deciding not to serve

other customers or needs and not to offer certain
features or services. Thus strategy requires con-
stant discipline and clear communication. Indeed,
one of the most important functions of an explicit,
communicated strategy is to guide employees in
making choices that arise because of trade-offs
in their individual activities and in day-to-day

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1996

Emerging Industries and Technologies

Developing a strategy in a newly emerging industry
or in a business undergoing revolutionary technologi-
cal changes is a daunting proposition. In such cases,
managers face a high level of uncertainty ahout the
needs of customers, the products and services that
will prove to he the most desired, and the hest configu-
ration of activities and technologies to deliver them.
Because of all this uncertainty, imitation and hedging
are rampant: unable to risk being wrong or left hehind,
companies match all features, offer all new services,
and explore all technologies.

During such periods in an industry’s development,
its hasic productivity frontier is being established or
reestablished. Explosive growth can make such times
profitable for many companies, but profits will he
temporary hecause imitation and strategic conver-
gence will ultimately destroy industry profitability.
The companies that are enduringly successful will be
those that begin as early as possible to define and em-

body in tbeir activities a unique competitive position.
A period of imitation may be inevitable in emerging
industries, but that period reflects the level of uncer-
tainty rather than a desired state of affairs.

In high-tech industries, this imitation phase often
continues much longer than it should. Enraptured by
tecbnological change itself, companies pack more fea-
tures – most of which are never used – into their prod-
ucts while slashing prices across the board. Rarely are
trade-offs even considered. The drive for growth to sat-
isfy market pressures leads companies into every
product area. Although a few companies with funda-
mental advantages prosper, the majority are doomed
to a rat race no one can win.

Ironically, the popular business press, focused on
hot, emerging industries, is prone to presentmg these
special cases as proof that we have entered a new era of
competition in which none of the old rules are valid.
In fact, tbe opposite is true.

Improving operational effectiveness is a neces-
sary part of management, but it is not strategy. In
confusing the two, managers have unintentionally
backed into a way of thinking about competition
that is driving many industries toward competitive
convergence, which is in no one’s best interest and
is not inevitable.

Managers must clearly distinguish operational
effectiveness from strategy. Both are essential, but
the two agendas are different.

The operational agenda involves continual im-
provement everywhere there are no trade-offs. Fail-
ure to do this creates vulnerability even for compa-
nies with a good strategy. The operational agenda
is the proper place for constant change, flexihility,
and relentless efforts to achieve hest practice. In
contrast, the strategic agenda is the right place for
defining a unique position, making clear trade-offs,
and tightening fit. It involves the continual search
for ways to reinforce and extend the company’s po-
sition. The strategic agenda demands discipline
and continuity; its enemies are distraction and

Strategic continuity does not imply a static view
of competition. A company must continually im-
prove its operational effectiveness and actively
try to shift the productivity frontier,- at the same
time, there needs to be ongoing effort to extend
its uniqueness while strengthening the fit among

its activities. Strategic continuity, in fact, should
make an organization’s continual improvement
more effective.

A company may have to change its strategy if
there are major structural changes in its industry.
In fact, new strategic positions often arise hecause
of industry changes, and new entrants unencum-
bered by history often can exploit them more easily.
However, a company’s choice of a new position
must be driven hy the ability to find new trade-offs
and leverage a new system of complementary activ-
ities into a sustainable advantage.

1.1 first described the concept of activities and its use in understanding
competitive advantage in Competitive Advanlaae |New York: The Free
Press, 19S5|. The ideas iti this article build on and extend that thinking.

2. Paul Milgrom and [ohn Roberts bave hegiin to explore the economics of
systems of compkmfntary functions, activities, and functions. Their fo-
cus is on tbe emergence of “modern manufacturing” as a new set of com-
plementary activities, on the tendency of companies to react to external
changes with coherent hundles of internal responses, and on the need for
central cuordination-a strategy-to align functional managers. In the Ut-
ter case, they model wbat has long been a bedrock principle of strategy.
See Paul Milgrom and lohn Roberts, “Tbe Economics nf Modern Manu-
facturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization,” Amencan Economic
ReWewS0(1990|: 511-528; Paul Milgrom, Ymgyi Qian, and iohn Roberts,
“Complemt-ntarities, Momentum, and Evolution of Modern Manufactur-
ing,” AnieriCii/J ftouomic Review 81 (1991184-88; and Paul Milgrom and
Iohn Roberts, “Complementarities and Fit: Strategy, Structure, and Orga-
nizational C^hanges in Manufacturing,” fournal of Accounting and Eco-
nomics, vol. 19 |Marcb-May 1995): 179-208.

3. Material on retail strategies is drawn in part from |an Rivkin, “The Rise
of Retail Category Killers,” unpublisbed working paper, January 1995.
Nicolaj Siggelkow prepared the case study on the Gap.

Reprint 96608 To order reprints, see tbe last page of this issue.

78 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW Novemher-Deeember ! 996

Copyright 1996 Harvard Business Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Additional restrictions
may apply including the use of this content as assigned course material. Please consult your
institution’s librarian about any restrictions that might apply under the license with your
institution. For more information and teaching resources from Harvard Business Publishing
including Harvard Business School Cases, eLearning products, and business simulations
please visit

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more