Too often, organizations sail with a “vision” that looks more like a generic motivational poster than a compass.

One of the discussions most frequently avoided by management teams is the evaluation of their organization's vision. Discomfort is evident. For many, this discussion is a necessary evil before discussing the real issues. Being part of the strategy review, it is, for several, a kind of esoteric introduction that makes them uneasy.

It is time to clarify the importance of this vision.

Defining a Vision

For Roger Martin, a vision must define what “winning” means for your organization. A vision that simply says “we want to be a market leader” is meaningless. Expressed as a strategic ambition, it allows the articulation of what victory looks like within the context of the targeted Client segment.

Jim Collins, on the other hand, talks about the BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goal). This is a bold and measurable long-term objective that mobilizes the organization and its vital forces.

This vision, this ambition, provides meaning and direction. It gives context for the different strategic choices and, above all, it allows success to be articulated. It is therefore ultimately measurable. It is possible to know when we have succeeded.

As with the navigator, it is possible to determine the destination and when arriving safely (to then identify a new destination).

From Vision to Strategic Choices

Martin frequently talks about the importance of making different integrated choices that establish the “Where to Play” and the “How to Win". These different choices are the foundation of his Strategy Cascade, which begins with the fundamental question: What is our winning aspiration?

The vision enables focused decision-making, efforts, stakeholder alignment, and mobilization while providing context for the strategy.

This vision serves as a strategic north to orient and arbitrate successive choices in an evolving environment. The strategy thus represents the answer to the challenges you face in achieving this ambition.

A good strategic ambition is therefore formulated in a way that clarifies for whom you want to create value, what makes this future distinctive, and how this will guide your choices, your strategy.

Criteria and Examples

During a recent discussion with members of a board of directors, I was asked to specify concrete examples of vision that went beyond slogans.

Drawing inspiration from Martin's perspective, here are different criteria to look for to identify a strategic ambition that guides strategy choices:

• Customer Benefit: A customer orientation that specifies the value it brings to its customers.
• Winning Criterion: Describes what winning means on a specific playing field.
• Selectivity: Allows us to say “no” to certain “where to play” opportunities.
• Viability of the Opposite: A competitor could succeed by making the opposite choices.

Here is an evaluation of Netflix, Google, Ferrari, Bell, and Provigo achieved with the contribution of AI. This evaluation lays the groundwork for a more in-depth search for strategic choices afterward.

1. Netflix

Ambition: “To become the best global entertainment distribution service.”

• Customer Orientation: High. The focus is on the consumption experience (“entertainment”) and ease of access (“distribution service”).
• Winning vs. Participating: High. The use of the superlative “the best,” coupled with “global,” defines a position of absolute leadership, not just another player.
• Selectivity (Where to Play): Very High. Netflix long refused movie theatres, live sports (until recently), and advertising to remain purely focused on stream distribution.
• Opposite Test: Validated. The opposite is “To be the producer of the most exclusive and qualitative content, regardless of the distribution platform” (Historical model of HBO or movie studios). This is a viable and different strategic choice.

2. Google (Alphabet)

Ambition: “To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (and today: "Be an AI-first company").

• Customer Orientation: Maximum. The benefit lies in utility and accessibility for the end user.
• Winning vs. Participating: High. “Universally” leaves no room for second place. Victory is present everywhere.
• Selectivity (Where to Play): Medium. This is the weak point. The aspiration is so broad that it allows Google to scatter (health, cars, home automation). However, the “AI-first” focus narrows the field to software intelligence.
• Opposite Test: Validated. The opposite is “To create a closed ecosystem of private and secure data, accessible only on our devices” (Apple’s strategy). This is a totally inverse choice for "winning."

3. Ferrari

Ambition: “Italian excellence that makes the world dream” (Focus on ultra-luxury and rarity).

• Customer Orientation: High. It targets emotion (“making the world dream”) rather than simple transportation.
• Winning vs. Participating: High. Victory is not measured by market share but by desirability and unit margin (they earn more per car than anyone else).
• Selectivity (Where to Play): Extreme. They refuse volume. They long refused 4-door models (before the Purosangue) and will never make a city car.
• Opposite Test: Validated. The opposite is “To make luxury performance accessible to the greatest number” (Porsche or Tesla strategy). This is a profitable volume strategy, but Ferrari chooses the inverse.

4. Bell (BCE)

Ambition: “To transform Bell from a telecommunications service provider into a leader in technology services ("Techco") in Canada.”

• Customer Orientation: Medium. The aspiration is largely focused on the company's internal transformation (from Telco to Techco). The customer benefit is implicit (better services) but not at the heart of the statement.
• Winning vs. Participating: High. They aim for national technological leadership (“Leader”), not just managing pipes.
• Selectivity (Where to Play): High. The field is geographical (Canada) and sectoral (integration of content, cloud, and connectivity).
• Opposite Test: Validated. The opposite is “To be a "Low-Cost" or "Asset-Light" operator that leases others' networks to focus solely on price” (MVNO model like Public Mobile). This is a viable model, but Bell chooses the complexity of technological assets.

5. Provigo (Loblaw)

Ambition (Perceived): “To provide value to Quebec families via the power of the Loblaw network and the PC Optimum program.”

• Customer Orientation: Medium. The focus is on “value” (quality-price ratio) and loyalty points. It is more transactional than emotional.
• Winning vs. Participating: Low. Provigo seems to be in a defensive posture in Quebec. Since Loblaw converted several Provigo stores to Maxi (its discount brand, which has a very clear ambition to win), Provigo seems to be “participating” without knowing how to win against IGA or Metro.
• Selectivity (Where to Play): Weak. This is the breaking point. Provigo tries to maintain "Premium" attributes (President’s Choice) while undergoing the cost reduction processes of a corporate machine designed for volume (Loblaw). They do not clearly choose between service and efficiency.
• Opposite Test: Failed. Provigo's opposite is not clear because their positioning is vague. Are they the opposite of Costco? Not really. Are they the opposite of the neighborhood grocery store? Not that either.

Next Steps

For Martin, if you read a company's ambition and cannot immediately guess what it refuses to do, it has no strategy.

It simply has a budget and hopes.

This week, evaluate your strategic ambition as well as that of your main competitors. Identify how this ambition allows you (or not) to make unique choices regarding your strategy and how you can win.

Have a great week,

Eric L'Heureux

P.S. Do you want to strengthen your competitive advantage?

Contact us to structure your next strategy review to increase the robustness of your decisions and your agile execution.