I fully agree that aspiring to win is the right posture - those who don't tend to end up on the receiving end of those who do. But for me, the more interesting question isn't whether the ambition to win is justified; it's how we define "winning" in the first place.
The definition is rarely universal. It shifts with the situation and with the person leading the charge. The same team facing two different environments will often arrive at two different winning aspirations - and two different leaders facing the same environment will just as often do the same. Context and character both shape the target.
This becomes especially visible in turbulent times. When the environment turns hostile, some organizations (wisely?) trim their winning aspiration to something more grounded: securing enough customers to stay stable, preserve cash flow, and survive the cycle. I don't see it as defeatism - rather calibration. The ambition to be meaningfully preferred over every competitor remains the destination; it just gets deferred until the conditions allow for it. Others, of course, read the same turbulence differently - they see disruption as the rare window when market positions can actually be reshuffled, and they press harder precisely when others pull back.
Neither reading is wrong. What matters is the honesty and clarity with which a leadership team defines its winning aspiration given who they are and where they stand - and then commits to it with full conviction.
I agree, Alex. The key to a winning aspiration is that it is well-matched with WTP/HTW/MHC/EMS. And those have to be responsive to context. Therefore so does WA. The key to remember is that you will never be better than your WA. If you aim low, you will stay low.
That is why, in the scenario you described, a WA of "let's hunker down to get through this in order to win on the other side" is much better than "let's hunker down to get through this."
While your definition of winning aspiration is crystal clear the whole concept of vision/mission is often very muddy. During my MBA several models were presented and what was the vision in one was the mission in another.
Then a few years ago it was all about "purpose". When I asked on LinkedIn how it differed from a vision I was usually told a purpose was an entirely different concept. Yet, when I probed the purpose crowd to articulate their framework 80%+ was already in Collins & Porras' model. The same ideas appeared just under another name.
Then a few years later came the North Star... defined by McKinsey as "a shared purpose and vision".
No wonder most purposes/visions/missions are so bland. People don't know what to put under it/them.
Yes purpose has been an industry. People are writing books about purpose and then consulting on it. Sigh. The best I can say is that this too shall pass!
I fully agree that aspiring to win is the right posture - those who don't tend to end up on the receiving end of those who do. But for me, the more interesting question isn't whether the ambition to win is justified; it's how we define "winning" in the first place.
The definition is rarely universal. It shifts with the situation and with the person leading the charge. The same team facing two different environments will often arrive at two different winning aspirations - and two different leaders facing the same environment will just as often do the same. Context and character both shape the target.
This becomes especially visible in turbulent times. When the environment turns hostile, some organizations (wisely?) trim their winning aspiration to something more grounded: securing enough customers to stay stable, preserve cash flow, and survive the cycle. I don't see it as defeatism - rather calibration. The ambition to be meaningfully preferred over every competitor remains the destination; it just gets deferred until the conditions allow for it. Others, of course, read the same turbulence differently - they see disruption as the rare window when market positions can actually be reshuffled, and they press harder precisely when others pull back.
Neither reading is wrong. What matters is the honesty and clarity with which a leadership team defines its winning aspiration given who they are and where they stand - and then commits to it with full conviction.
I agree, Alex. The key to a winning aspiration is that it is well-matched with WTP/HTW/MHC/EMS. And those have to be responsive to context. Therefore so does WA. The key to remember is that you will never be better than your WA. If you aim low, you will stay low.
That is why, in the scenario you described, a WA of "let's hunker down to get through this in order to win on the other side" is much better than "let's hunker down to get through this."
While your definition of winning aspiration is crystal clear the whole concept of vision/mission is often very muddy. During my MBA several models were presented and what was the vision in one was the mission in another.
Then a few years ago it was all about "purpose". When I asked on LinkedIn how it differed from a vision I was usually told a purpose was an entirely different concept. Yet, when I probed the purpose crowd to articulate their framework 80%+ was already in Collins & Porras' model. The same ideas appeared just under another name.
Then a few years later came the North Star... defined by McKinsey as "a shared purpose and vision".
No wonder most purposes/visions/missions are so bland. People don't know what to put under it/them.
Yes purpose has been an industry. People are writing books about purpose and then consulting on it. Sigh. The best I can say is that this too shall pass!