"Deepen engagement in our core segment" becomes "shed engagement in our core segment." "Improve time to value for new customers" becomes "slow new customers down." If every opposite reads as obviously idiotic, nobody in that room made a choice. Roger Martin published that test in October 2020, in the first month of a weekly run he closed on 16 February 2026 after 260 essays and roughly 470,000 words.
"Deepen engagement in our core segment" becomes "shed engagement in our core segment." "Improve time to value for new customers" becomes "slow new customers down." If every opposite reads as obviously...
Roger Martin published that test in October 2020, in the first month of a weekly run he closed on 16 February 2026 after 260 essays and roughly 470,000 words.
Organizations have to make innumerable choices where the opposite is stupid on its face, he writes, they just do not rise to the level of a strategy choice.
The page is ready to read now. The fuller skim-friendly version will appear here automatically.
Roger Martin published that test in October 2020, in the first month of a weekly run he closed on 16 February 2026 after 260 essays and roughly 470,000 words. Organizations have to make innumerable choices where the opposite is stupid on its face, he writes, they just do not rise to the level of a strategy choice. "Deepen engagement in our core segment" becomes "shed engagement in our core segment." "Improve time to value for new customers" becomes "slow new customers down." If every opposite reads as obviously idiotic, nobody in that room made a choice.
"Deepen engagement in our core segment" becomes "shed engagement in our core segment." "Improve time to value for new customers" becomes "slow new customers down." If every opposite reads as obviously idiotic, nobody in that room made a choice.
They wrote a plan and put a strategy label on it. Operating imperatives are the ones where the opposite is absurd.
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.