Are rivals and competition necessary to inspire great strategy?
Could strategy serve a higher purpose than “total market dominance?”
One of the legendary “Lords of Strategy“, Michael Porter, claims in his 2001 paper “Strategy and the Internet,” and his 1996 paper “What is Strategy” that:
- “The goal of strategy is to achieve a “superior long-term return on investment.” (Porter 2001, p.71)
- “Competitive strategy is about being different.” (Porter 1996, p.64)
- “Strategy is the creation of a unique and valuable position, involving a different set of activities….” (Porter 1996, p.68)
I think Mr. Porter’s writings would typically be categorized in the “total market dominance” camp, but taken out of his context these statements could be construed to support something else.
Something bigger than “total market dominance.”
What if you and your leadership team were to develop a strategy that cohered with the prayer of Jesus “…your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven…?”
Is it possible that you could conceive a strategy to achieve long-term human experience optimization?
That is – a strategy to maximize the well-being of all the stakeholders in your organization.
The first step in this strategy might be to create a new position – that of CHEO.
Chief Human Experience Officer – who’s role is to weigh decisions against the strategic anchor of optimizing the human experience for all the stakeholders in the organization.
That would be “different.”
That position might “create a valuable position, involving a different set of activities.”
How might those different activites effect your talent recruiting and retention efforts?
How would they effect your customer service policies and standards of behavior?
How would they effect your financial stewardship?
How would they effect your corporate social responsibility initiatives?
What would those “different activities” do for your trust building efforts?
Would the world be a little more like heaven and a little less like hell?
Isn’t that winning?