Playing to Win: Lafley and Martin's Strategy Framework

tl;dr

• Playing to Win by A.G. Lafley and Roger Martin is a strategy framework that structures strategy as a cascade of five connected decisions: Winning Aspiration, Where to Play, How to Win, Capabilities, and Management Systems — the strategic choice cascade as a leverage-point decision shows where in the decision stream the greatest leverage effect lies.
• Without clear decisions at all five cascade levels, a company has no strategy — only ambitions, goals, or programs.
• Those who master the choice cascade can test any business model for strategic coherence — whether the Where-to-Play decision and How-to-Win approach fit together and whether the capabilities support the strategy.

---

What is Playing to Win?

Playing to Win is a strategy framework by A.G. Lafley and Roger Martin, published in 2013. Lafley was twice CEO of Procter & Gamble, Martin was Dean of the Rotman School of Management. The framework defines strategy as “an integrated set of choices that uniquely positions the firm in its industry so as to create sustainable advantage and superior value relative to the competition.”

The strategic choice cascade as a leverage-point decision means: The five cascade levels are not equal. In every strategic situation there is one level whose clarification has the greatest leverage effect on all others — typically “Where to Play” and “How to Win.” Choosing the wrong playing field means you cannot win — regardless of how good the capabilities are.

Lafley makes the distinction explicit: “Grow or grow faster is not a strategy. Build market share is not a strategy. Ten percent earnings-per-share growth is not a strategy. A strategy is a coordinated and integrated set of where-to-play, how-to-win, core capability, and management system choices.”

The Strategy Choice Cascade — 5 Questions

1. Winning Aspiration — What are we playing for?

The Winning Aspiration defines purpose and ambition: Do we want to win or just participate? Lafley and Martin warn: “A too-modest aspiration is far more dangerous than a too-lofty one.” GM’s Saturn illustrates the danger: Saturn only wanted to “participate” in the small car segment. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan wanted to win. After 20 billion dollars in losses over two decades, Saturn was discontinued. “Saturn died, not because it made bad cars, but because its aspirations were simply too modest.”

2. Where to Play — Where do we compete?

Where to Play defines the playing field: Which markets, customer segments, channels, and geographies does the company choose — and which not? P&G’s Olay transformation demonstrates the power of the playing-field decision: Instead of staying in the shrinking segment for women over 50, Olay created a new “masstige” segment — prestige quality in the mass-market channel, at 18.99 dollars. The price was deliberately chosen: 12.99 dollars attracted only mass buyers, 15.99 dollars was no-man’s-land, but 18.99 dollars attracted BOTH mass AND prestige buyers. Olay grew from an 800-million-dollar to a 2.5-billion-dollar brand.

3. How to Win — How do we achieve competitive advantage?

How to Win defines the competitive advantage on the chosen playing field. Lafley and Martin are categorical: “Due to the fundamental microeconomics of business, there are only two ways to win: higher margin through lower cost or higher margin through differentiation.” The decision is binary — but the execution is infinitely varied.

4. Capabilities — What capabilities do we need?

Capabilities are the abilities that enable Where to Play and How to Win. P&G identifies five core capabilities: deep customer understanding, innovation, brand building, go-to-market capability, and global scale. These five act as “reinforcing rods” — individually strong, in combination insurmountable.

5. Management Systems — What systems support the strategy?

Management Systems are the structures, processes, and measurement systems that maintain the capabilities and operationalize the cascade decisions. Without the right systems, capabilities remain statements of intent.

The “What Would Have to Be True?” method

Roger Martin’s most powerful contribution is a decision-making method: Instead of pro-and-con debates that devolve into advocacy conflicts, each strategic option asks: “What would have to be true for this option to work?” The method identifies the most unlikely conditions (barrier conditions) for each option and tests them systematically. Martin: “I used the most important question in strategy — what would have to be true? — to build an entirely new methodology for thinking through choices.”

Distinction from related frameworks

Playing to Win is not the same as Porter's Five Forces

Playing to Win is a decision framework that defines WHERE and HOW a company wants to win, while Porter’s Five Forces is an analysis framework that evaluates the attractiveness of an industry. Playing to Win uses Porter’s analysis as input for the “Where to Play” decision — but goes beyond it because it demands concrete decisions, not just analysis.

Playing to Win is not the same as Blue Ocean Strategy

Playing to Win is a framework for integrated strategic decisions across five cascade levels, while Blue Ocean Strategy is a method for creating new market spaces. Playing to Win can embed a Blue Ocean decision (Olay created a “masstige” segment) — but it also encompasses the capabilities and systems needed to win in the new market.

Playing to Win is not the same as Good Strategy Bad Strategy

Playing to Win is a decision framework with five cascading questions, while Rumelt’s “Good Strategy Bad Strategy” is a diagnostic framework with the strategy kernel (diagnosis, guiding policy, coherent actions). Rumelt begins with the question “What is the problem?”, Lafley and Martin begin with “What do we want to win?” Both are complementary — Rumelt’s diagnosis informs Martin’s choice cascade.

Playing to Win in practice

Aydoo uses the Choice Cascade as a structuring tool in strategy consulting: The five questions force every strategy into a coherent form — from the Winning Aspiration through the playing-field choice to the capabilities analysis. Strategic analysis delivers the data for the “Where to Play” decision, strategy development formulates the “How to Win” answer.

Conclusion

Playing to Win is a strategy framework that structures strategy as a cascade of five connected decisions. The strategic choice cascade as a leverage-point decision shows: In every strategy there is one cascade level whose clarification has the greatest effect on all others. Lafley and Martin: “Strategy is choice — and nothing less.”

Strategic thinking provides the cognitive foundation for the choice cascade. Corporate strategy determines the framework within which the five questions are answered. And Good Strategy Bad Strategy supplements the choice cascade with Rumelt’s diagnostic principle — because the right answer to “Where to Play” requires that the central challenge is understood.

Sources

• Lafley, A.G.; Martin, Roger: Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works. Harvard Business Review Press, 2013.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Playing to Win?

Playing to Win is a strategy framework by A.G. Lafley (CEO of Procter & Gamble) and Roger Martin. It structures strategy as a cascade of five connected decisions: Winning Aspiration, Where to Play, How to Win, Capabilities, and Management Systems. The core message: Strategy is an integrated set of decisions that uniquely position the company.

What is the Strategy Choice Cascade?

The Strategy Choice Cascade is the heart of Playing to Win — five questions that every strategy must answer: (1) What is our Winning Aspiration? (2) Where do we play? (3) How do we win? (4) What capabilities do we need? (5) What management systems support the capabilities? The answers form a reinforcing cascade — each decision influences the others.

What do "Where to Play" and "How to Win" mean?

“Where to Play” defines the playing field: Which markets, customer segments, channels, and geographies does the company choose? “How to Win” defines the competitive advantage on that playing field: through cost leadership or through differentiation. There are only two ways to win — lower costs or higher value for the customer.

How does Playing to Win differ from Porter's Five Forces?

Playing to Win is a decision framework for your own strategy — it answers WHERE and HOW a company wants to win. Porter’s Five Forces is an analysis framework for industry structure — it answers how attractive an industry is. Playing to Win uses Porter’s analysis as input but goes beyond it: It demands concrete decisions, not just analysis.

What is the "What Would Have to Be True?" method?

“What Would Have to Be True?” is Roger Martin’s method for decision-making on strategic questions. Instead of conducting pro-and-con debates, each option asks: What conditions would have to be true for this option to work? The most unlikely conditions are tested. This transforms advocacy conflicts into collaborative inquiry.

Related Articles

• Strategy — What strategy is and why companies need one
• Strategy Development — The process in which the choice cascade is embedded
• Good Strategy Bad Strategy — Rumelt’s diagnostic principle as a complement
• Corporate Strategy — The framework for the five cascade questions
• Bottleneck-Focused Strategy (EKS) — Concentration of forces as a decision principle

---

Are the five cascade questions answered in your strategy? Get in touch