"Michael Porter didn't get to be a giant in the field of competition and strategy by hunting small game."
Joan Magretta begins her new book on Harvard Business School's Michael Porter's work by noting that, from the start of his career, Porter has been asking a big question when it comes to understanding everything from the free enterprise system to the individual motivations of managers.
Why are some companies more profitable than others?
In this excerpt from an interview between Porter and Magretta, Porter discusses the importance of strategy in delivering competitive advantage.
Book excerpt from Understanding Michael Porter: The Essential Guide to Competition and Strategy.
Joan Magretta: What are the most common strategy mistakes you see?
Michael Porter: The granddaddy of all mistakes is competing to be the best, going down the same path as everybody else and thinking that somehow you can achieve better results. This is a hard race to win. So many managers confuse operational effectiveness with strategy. Another common mistake is confusing marketing with strategy. It's natural for strategy to arise from a focus on customers and their needs. So in many companies, strategy is built around the value proposition, which is the demand side of the equation. But a robust strategy requires a tailored value chain—it's about the supply side as well, the unique configuration of activities that delivers value. Strategy links choices on the demand side with the unique choices about the value chain (the supply side). You can't have competitive advantage without both.
“The granddaddy of all mistakes is competing to be the best, going down the same path as everybody else and thinking that somehow you can achieve better results.”
Another mistake is to overestimate strengths. There's an inward-looking bias in many organizations. You might perceive customer service as a strong area. So that becomes the "strength" on which you attempt to build a strategy. But a real strength for strategy purposes has to be something the company can do better than any of its rivals. And "better" because you are performing different activities than they perform, because you've chosen a different configuration than they have.
Another common mistake is getting the definition of the business wrong, or getting the geographic scope wrong. There has been a tendency to define industries broadly, following the influential work of Theodore Levitt some decades ago. His famous example was railroads that failed to see that they were in the transportation business, and so they missed the threat posed by trucks and airfreight. The problem with defining the business as transportation, however, is that railroads are clearly a distinct industry with distinct economics and a separate value chain. Any sound strategy in railroads must take these differences into account. Defining the industry as transportation can be dangerous if it leads managers to conclude that they need to acquire an airfreight company so they can compete in multiple forms of transportation.
Similarly, there has been a tendency to define industries as global when they are national or encompass only groups of neighboring countries. Companies, mindful of the drumbeat about globalization, internationalize without understanding the true economics of their business. The value chain is the principal tool to delineate the geographic boundaries of competition, to determine how local or how global that business is. In a local business, every local area will require a complete and largely separate value chain. At the other extreme, a global industry is one where important activities in the value chain can be shared across all countries.
Reflecting on my experience, however, I'd have to say that the worst mistake—and the most common one—is not having a strategy at all. Most executives think they have a strategy when they really don't, at least not a strategy that meets any kind of rigorous, economically grounded definition.
Magretta: Why is that? Why do so few companies have really great strategies? What are the biggest obstacles to good strategy?
Porter: I used to think that most strategy problems arose from limited or faulty data, or poor analysis of the industry and competitors. To say it differently, I thought the problem was a failure to understand competition. This surely does happen. But the more I have worked in this field, the more I have come to appreciate the more subtle and more pervasive obstacles to clear strategic thinking and how challenging it is for companies to maintain their strategies over time.
There are so many barriers that distract, deter, and divert managers from making clear strategic choices. Some of the most significant barriers come from the many hidden biases embedded in internal systems, organizational structures, and decision-making processes. It's often hard, for example, to get the kind of cost information you need to think strategically. Or the company's incentive system rewards the wrong things. Or human nature makes it really hard to make tradeoffs, or to stick with them. The need for trade-offs is a huge barrier. Most managers hate to make trade-offs; they hate to accept limits. They'd almost always rather try to serve more customers, offer more features. They can't resist believing that this will lead to more growth and more profit.
I believe that many companies undermine their own strategies. Nobody does it to them. They do it themselves. Their strategies fail from within.
Then there is the host of strategy killers in the external environment. These range from so-called industry experts to regulators and financial analysts. These all tend to push companies toward what I call "competition to be the best"—the analyst who wants every company to look like the current market favorite, the consultant who helps you benchmark yourself against everyone else in the industry, or who pushes the next big thing, such as the notion that you're supposed to delight and retain every single customer.
Let's take this last idea as an example. If you listen to every customer and do what they ask you to do, you can't have a strategy. Like so many ideas that get sold to managers, there is some truth to it, but the nuances get lost. Strategy is not about making every customer happy. When you've got your strategist's hat on, you want to decide which customers and which needs you want to meet. As to the other customers and the other needs, well, you just have to get over the fact that you will disappoint them, because that's actually a good thing.
I also believe that as capital markets have evolved they have become more and more toxic for strategy. The single-minded pursuit of shareholder value, measured over the short term, has been enormously destructive for strategy and value creation. Managers are chasing the wrong goal.
These are just some of the obstacles. Cumulatively, they add up. Having a strategy in the first place is hard. Maintaining a strategy is even harder.
Initially in startups there should be a focus on staying alive long enough to succeed, not to make decisions about too wide a market entry or providing too elaborate an initial product.
You cannot respond to every need expressed by every potential customer; just listen to enough of them to sell a product that keeps you going.
The last part of the article remind me a conference that I attended few years ago and the Dr. said to the audience that "the customers don't have the reason".... (then the audience began to whisper about it), and he repeated... customers don't have the reason, they have the money, and you want that money!!!...
Most of us have many customers and if you ask every customer about their needs, for sure you will find that they have some different needs and you can not satisfy all...
You better make a strategy, prioritizing... or the most profitable and/or the things that give you a diferentiation, and/or things that keeps you in the market and/or the things that give you more market share, whatever your focus is at that specific point of the analysis (prioritize).
But don't forget to get that money!.
It required a sacrificial loss, (the company's loss of my services) to help shake management from their singular pursuit of sales at any cost. I did not return anytime after my departure to check the status of this company's well-being, although it is still in operation. Only under different name.
My instant reaction for the question - Why are some companies more profitable than others? would have been - the companies are 'plain-lucky'.
But, if one were to probe for rational reasons - It would rather emerge that the Companies executed Strategies around what Porter's Framework suggests! So, in essence - it does make sense( in a way) to find out from this publication from Joan Magretta - as to what not to do - or what to avoid! This is exactly the knowledge that would allow companies define their strategies a little faster, having validated that they have not had the common pitfalls!
Michael Porter has explained crisply what strategy is and what it is not. It is a bounden responsibility of the Board of Directors to finalise strategy and give appropriate directions; also continuously monitor how things are shaping; suggesting and getting implemented remedial measures is then possible.
I totally agree that a strategy of whatever standard/quality must be devised as absence thereof is, to say the least, suicidal.
Defining the firm as global, when in fact it was regional at best, led to adoption of the wrong tactics with disastrous consequences. This is an excellent article and business leaders will do well to take heed of it's lessons.
- Sun Tzu
Yale cold-war history professor recently defined strategy as a relationship and the dictionary defines it as a (military) plan to achieve an objective. The textbook (Gamble) definition of a company's business strategy is "the combination of competitive moves and business approaches that managers employ to please customers, compete successfully, conduct operations, and achieve organizational objectives."
Some other common strategy mistakes: one or two large customers and they dictate terms or their failure could affect your business, ethically irresponsible business partners, lack of control of your business (how much to delegate and how much to retain), sticking to the same old strategy too long when the world (external environment) has changed (like most of our politicians, Swiss watch makers is another example) or management failure to unlearn an old strategy fast enough to accommodate (meaningful change) a new strategy based on new information, and not thinking of employee delight (which makes employees passionate about their jobs) along with customer delight.
Transportation is not a "business." It is a sector of the economy in which we can find several industries and many, many businesses.
The most common mistake in Strategic Management is getting the definition of the business wrong. Unfortunately, if you get that wrong, all the steps in the process that follow will fall short, at best.
Dan Thomas
..at everything we do. (Strategy No. 1.1: Perfection is its own reward. No. 1.2: Obtain client satisfaction on every job.) And that's the extent of our strategic thinking. Thank you for putting up a mirror to our faces.
Making strategy means deciding what to do, maintaining the humility to effectively assess situations, strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately, we need to cultivate a human virtue, so that ethics comes into play.
Best regards
Andrea Marcosignori
As someone once said, you know you have a strategy when you can say no (to an idea or project.)
As a previous Director of Strategic Planning for Coca-Cola FEMSA, we all did work around the value proposition of "Coke is it", but also tailored our main competitive advantage (distribution), to satisfy different consumer
needs and experiences. As marketing evolves through social media, it is essential to keep in mind the relevance of this holistic approach to strategy implementation.
Thanks you very much from this side of the globe. I cna make use of the information this time when our school inundergoing some difficulties in financial and human resources brought about by decline in enrollment.
But I cant help thinking as I read this excerpt that the internal sabotage of strategy is a no-brainer!. Anyone who has worked long enough in the consulting field will know no matter how well you develop the strategy the problem remains that business leader(s) will find away to obstruct it or destroy it.
The success or failure of a strategy is not dependent on the strength of the strategy but on the ability of the CEO/Chair/MD to own the idea and to sell it no holds barred to his supporters and detractors over the longer period.
This happens so often that maybe WE (the architects of Strategy) need to rethink the whole concept and find a way to avoid this happening. Maybe we are out of step with our clients needs??
1. Mr. Porter's definition of strategy fails to include an essential financial constraint. When he talks about strategy as "a unique configuration of activities that deliver value," he should add this: ". . .deliver value but retain enough of the value created to exceed the firm's weighted average cost of capital." There value creation, and then there's value retention.
2. I wish that he had brought up the subject of 'strategic groups.' His 1980 book devotes a long chapter to them. His 1977 QJE paper with Prof. Caves is a world-beater. Most of us work for or with middle-market companies. In that market, the industry-analysis slice really matters. And it matters because, in most competitive domains, the 'industry' isn't that at all: it's a 'strategic group.' Federal Trade Commission data show clearly that the local and regional underpinning of a specific industry structure differs markedly from that of a given industry as a whole. That is why, in most of our work, the 'industry analysis' is done on the strategic group, rather than the industry itself. The process is exactly the same in either case. We use the phrase 'competitive domain' to include both an industry and its constituent 'strategic groups'.