Lições de Hidden Champions (parte IV)

Parte I e parte II e parte III.

Mais um conjunto de lições a reter dos "hidden champions":

• Criam os seus mercados através da abordagem e definição do mesmo
• Trabalham constantemente para manter o product/serviço à frente
• Usam a escassez como forma de controlar o preço e não tornar o mercado atraente para os gigantes
• Evitam a diversificação para não se distrairem do que é essencial para o seu mercado.

"Market domination strategies adopted by supernichists or market owners are not easily imitated by normal companies, just as it makes no sense for an average violinist to compete with Anne-Sophie Mutter or Itzhak Perlman. The simplest way for a company to own a market is to create that market itself. Ideally, such a market does not yet exist and is created or defined by the new product. In addition, the uniqueness of the product must be sustainable. Imitation or the establishment of similar markets must be prevented at all costs. The product's outstanding position must be continually renewed and defended over time. Various instruments can be used to maintain a product's uniqueness:

• Patent protection, 
• powerful trademark or logo, 
• intensive relationships and familiarity with customers, and 
• artistic designs with frequent updates.

...

However, scarcity also means that the supernichists or market owners voluntarily refrain from exploiting their full growth potential. Exclusivity can only be maintained if volume expansion is controlled.

Market owners teach us valuable lessons in relationship marketing. They have been spoiling their loyal customers for years, initiating clubs and collectors' movements long before these concepts were discovered by the marketing literature.

...

Those who enjoy sustained success are wise enough to stay specialized and secretive, and to keep their markets small. These can be important lessons for other companies.

Superniches limit growth opportunities and make the deliberate decision not to grow, 

...

It is evident that the strong focus of the hidden champions harbors risks. After all, it means putting "all the eggs in one basket." Are the hidden champions too highly dependent on their narrow markets, just a handful of customers, and the business cycles they cannot compensate elsewhere?

...

The hidden champions are committed to their markets for better or worse. The risks of this dependence should not be underestimated. Whether specialization goes too far can only be determined on an individual basis. Focus is simultaneously the foundation of strength and a source of risk.

There are essentially three types of risks:

• Dependence on one market ("all eggs in one basket").
• An upscale market niche can be attacked by standard products (risk of losing the premium position).
• The niche's small market volume or high costs may erode customer acceptance and/or price competitiveness.

...

The hidden champions avoid the risk of distraction from their core business, a mistake that is frequently fatal for diversified companies. The hidden champions rarely sell off businesses. Focus on the core business and the risks associated with it force the hidden champions to keep a close eye on their market and to defend their position by swift reactions to changes in customer needs or to new technological developments. The dependence on their market makes them ferocious defenders and great innovators."

Lições de Hidden Champions (parte II)

Foco, foco, foco... 

"How Hidden Champions Define Their Markets

There are numerous ways to define a market or a business. The oldest version is based on the product: "We operate in the market for dishwashers." This product-oriented definition was heavily criticized by Theodore Levitt in the groundbreaking article Marketing Myopia in 1960. Levitt's criticism of the American railroad companies has become famous. According to Levitt, their definition of their market as "railroads" and not *passenger transport" meant that they overlooked the emerging competition from airlines.

...

The market definition demanded by Levitt is based on customer needs or application.[Moi ici: Recordo logo Think “outcome before output”] "We make clean dishes our business" would be a needs-oriented definition for a dishwasher manufacturer. In addition, markets can be determined by reference to customer or target groups. Staying with our example, this would be: "We supply hotels and restaurants with dishwashing systems.' For example, the CEO of Brother, Seichi Hirata, made the following precise market definition according to target group, "Our main target group is the segment of small offices, home offices and small and midsize companies. We know this business very well and focus on it.

"Our competitors cover all segments. We don't." [Moi ici: É preciso ter muita coragem para não seguir atrás dos concorrentes] Brother achieved market leadership with its office machines in this segment as a result of the narrow market definition.

...

With their market definitions the hidden champions of the twenty-first century generally show a very modern understanding of the market. Customer needs and target groups clearly top the list. 

...

The hidden champions have grown beyond the narrow boundaries of their regions of origin. They view the world as their market, not their country or region. [Moi ici: Recordar "Nichos, co-criação e intimidade à escala" com a lição alemão e o fim da geografia]

...

If we asked a hidden champion selected at random to state the key to its success, the most likely answer would be "We specialize in ...""

"Hidden Champions of the Twenty-First Century Success Strategies of Unknown World Market Leaders" de Hermann Simon 

"what gets measured is everything"

"Why don't organizations immediately leap at opportunities to play the Ends Game? [Moi ici: Aqui Ends Game significa trabalhar com os outcomes do cliente e não com os outputs da empresa] Why doesn't an organization, knowing that eliminating waste unlocks market potential, act proactively to shake up the prevailing revenue model in its industry, trying to reach a better alignment with the value customers actually derive in an exchange?

All too often, the remarkable explanation is that such a company is "blinded" by the quality of the products and services it proudly brings to market. This is what we refer to as the quality paradox. At some point, the relentless pursuit of quality makes it almost unimaginable to generate revenue from anything other than the sale of one's offerings. Said differently, when a company obsessively directs its efforts toward continuously innovating its products and services, it risks becoming accountable to its offering rather than to its customers.

...

One probable cause of the quality paradox is surrogation, a concept made popular by Willie Choi, Gary Hecht, and William Tayler in a research article published in 2012. Put in its simplest terms, surrogation occurs when an individual or institution becomes so keenly focused on improving the measure of an underlying construct of interest that it reaches a point where the measure replaces the construct entirely. Surrogation warps the intent behind the old management cliché about "what gets measured, gets done" into something like "what gets measured is everything." 

Trechos retirados de "The ends game : how smart companies stop selling products and start delivering value" de Marco Bertini e Oded Koenigsberg. 

Não querer ser tudo para todos

Uma mensagem clássica deste blogue: a focalização. Escolher os clientes-alvo e não tentar ser tudo para todos:

"This study empirically examines the impact of firms' pursuing multiple generic strategies, namely, Porter's low-cost and focus strategies. We conceptualize pursuing cost efficiency advantage as a low-cost strategy and restraining rivalry through horizontal differentiation as a focus strategy. Although we corroborate earlier strategy research that each of these strategies alone may have a positive impact on firm profitability, we highlight that mechanisms driving the interaction of these two strategies are, in fact, nonadditive in nature, consistent with recent analytical work. Using the context of the scheduled U.S. passenger airline industry over two decades, we empirically show that combining a low-cost strategy with a focus strategy is, indeed, detrimental to firm profitability, which has important implications for scholarship and practice.

Firms have effectively used low-cost or focus strategies to improve their performance. Our study demonstrates that although firms pursuing either strategy individually can benefit, pursuing these two generic strategies of low-cost and focus simultaneously actually hurts firms' profitability. In essence, we show that when firms pursuing a low-cost strategy already possess a cost efficiency advantage over their rivals for the full customer base, firms have nothing to gain by simultaneously limiting rivalry - through focusing on a smaller customer segment-and thus giving away revenue to rivals. Our insights regarding the combination of different generic strategies caution managers to not be misled by the performance gains of either low-cost and focus strategies individually, but to realize that these two in tandem actually may harm profitability."

Trechos retirados de "Competing both ways: How combining Porter's low-cost and focus strategies hurts firm performance" publicado pela revista Strategic Management Journal em Março último.

Dizer não mais vezes

Revi-me nesta mensagem e na dificuldade em dizer não mais vezes, "The Focus to Say No". Válido para pessoas e para empresas:

"The most powerful skill you’ve never been taught is focus.

We all have the same number of hours in a week. The difference is how we use them.

...

The difference between average results and exceptional ones is what you avoid. You can do anything, but you can’t do everything.

...

While saying yes consume time, saying no creates time.

Saying no is hard. 

...

People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I’m actually as proud of the things we haven’t done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying ‘no’ to 1,000 things."

“It’s a difficult proposition to be all things to all people, as opposed to doing one thing really well”

Há textos que lemos e nos fazem sorrir. Ontem li "The Next Generation of Resale Sites" onde sublinhei:

"part of a new generation of resale start-ups that sees a big opportunity in filling in the gaps not already dominated by the category’s giants,

...

many niche resale sites pitch themselves as an antidote to e-commerce sites that stock tens of thousands of items. They’re counting on shoppers getting fed up with sifting through an endless online garage sale.

“There is just so much stuff on [large resale sites], sometimes it gets overwhelming,”

...

“If a site is known for selling one certain category, and they do it well, they bring a level of trust,” 

...

“That’s how you get virality,” Chan said. “They will remember that it’s tailor-made for a particular hobby they identify with.”

...

“It’s a difficult proposition to be all things to all people, as opposed to doing one thing really well,” Rose said. “There’s value in community and building deep resonance.”"

Em sintonia com algo que fui lendo ao longo dos anos e que adoptei muito cedo, pode e deve haver estratégia em todo lado, não é winner-take-all! Assim ao longos dos anos citei aqui:

""It soon became apparent that much of the received wisdom about network effects was wrong. The first-mover advantage and winner-take-all theories, for example, were shaky at best.

...

Economists missed the fact that matchmakers, just like any other businesses, can differentiate themselves."[Fonte em 2016]

A todos os que acreditam que as plataformas são uma coisa de "Winner take all"[Fonte de 2019] 

Seth Godin pôs-me na rota certa [Fonte em 2014] 

 E por que é que as plataformas bem sucedidas cavam a sua própria sepultura? [Fonte de 2015] Too big to care é um primeiro passo para a suckiness, para perder perante tribos apaixonadas e irmãos de sangue.

 

Para reflexão

 "Given how much our culture depends on finding out what’s new, it’s surprising that few have figured out how to be smart about it. If you’re a creator, the truth remains what the truth has been ever since Yahoo tried to sort the web by hand: the best way to make a hit is to build something for the smallest viable audience and make it so good that people tell their peers."

Trecho retirado de "Who is good at discovery?" 

Ginásios, demografia e clientes-alvo

Recordar "Demografia e clientes-alvo" onde cito um texto que escrevi em 2015 e outro em 2017:

"Quando um ginásio coloca pósteres de moças e moços a caminho de algum concurso de culturismo ou de beleza, está a apostar e a dizer ao mercado quem são os seus alvos e, ao mesmo tempo está a dizer aos seniores: nós não somos para vocês."

"E interrogo-me porque é que nunca vi um ginásio dedicado explicitamente ao sector sénior?
.
Têm dimensão, têm tempo livre, têm poder de compra, têm um trabalho concreto por realizar (recuperar/manter e prolongar qualidade de vida, autonomia, autoestima, ...)" 

Agora oiçam o discurso a seguir ao minuto 43 aqui.




Quem são os clientes-alvo?
A comunicação está dirigida para eles ou, pelo contrário, afasta-os?

"acha que uma PME consegue?"

Nem as empresas com dinheiro e protecção governamental se safam quando não estão focadas, quando escolheram ser tudo para todos e estar em todo o lado.

Isto a propósito de "Air France plans to cut almost 500 jobs on ‘fierce’ competition":

"Air France blamed increased competition from high speed rail and low-cost airlines as it announced 500 job cuts and said it would downsize its short haul operations.
.
The airline said on Monday it would implement 465 voluntary redundancies over the next year. It also announced plans to cut its domestic network capacity by 15 per cent by 2021.
.
The move comes as the carrier, part of the Air France-KLM group, looks to deal with “extremely fierce competition” in the sector."

Se empresas com dinheiro e consultores pagos a peso de ouro não conseguem, acha que uma PME consegue?

Quem são os clientes-alvo? Qual a proposta de valor?

“Hierarchy of Purpose”

Simplesmente muito bom, "How to Prioritize Your Company’s Projects":

"We had more than 100 large projects (each worth over 500,000 euros) under way. No one had a clear view of the status of those investments, or even the anticipated benefits. The bank was using a project management tool, but the lack of discipline in keeping it up to date made it largely fruitless. Capacity, not strategy, was determining which projects launched and when. If people were available, the project was launched. If not, it stalled or was killed.
.
Prioritization at a strategic and operational level is often the difference between success and failure. But many organizations do it badly.
...
Of course, sometimes leaders simply make the wrong decisions; they prioritize the wrong thing. But in my 20 years as an executive, the problem I see more often is that leaders don’t make decisions at all. They don’t clearly signal their intent about what matters. In short, they don’t prioritize.
...
The number of priorities admitted to by an organization is revealing. It is notable that if the risk appetite of a senior executive team is very low (or if they are not able or inclined to make the tough choices), they will tend to have a generous portfolio of priorities; they don’t want to take the risk of not being compliant, missing a market opportunity, not having the latest technologies, and so on. But in my experience, the most successful executives tend to be more risk taking and have a laser-like focus on a small number of priorities. These executives know what matters today and tomorrow. At the extreme, this might mean simply having a single priority. The more focus, the better.
...
In that time, I have developed a simple framework that I call the “Hierarchy of Purpose.” It is a tool that executive teams can use to help them prioritize strategic initiatives and projects:
.
Purpose. What is the purpose of the organization and how is that purpose best pursued? What is the strategic vision supporting this purpose?
Priorities. Given the stated purpose and vision, what matters most to the organization now and in the future? What are its priorities now and over the next two to five years?
Projects. Based on the answers to the first two points, which projects are the most strategic and should be resourced to the hilt? Which projects align with the purpose, vision, and priorities, and which should be stopped or scrapped?
People. Now that there is clarity around the strategic priorities and the projects that matter most, who are the best people to execute on those projects?
Performance. Traditionally, project performance indicators are tied to inputs (e.g., scope, cost, and time). They are much easier to track than outputs (such as benefits, impact, and goals). However, despite the difficulty companies have in tracking outputs, it’s the outputs that really matter. What are the precise outcome-related targets that will measure real performance and value creation? Reduce your attention to inputs and focus on those instead."

Gabiche? (parte IV)

Parte I, parte II e parte III.

"Forcing a focus
.
The relentless pursuit of mass will make you boring, because mass means average, it means the center of the curve, it requires you to offend no one and satisfy everyone. It will lead to compromises and generalizations. Begin instead with the smallest viable market. What’s the minimum number of people you would need to influence to make it worth the effort?
...
Choose the people who want what you’re offering. Choose the people most open to hearing your message. Choose the people who will tell the right other people . . .
...
Choose the people you serve, choose your future.
The smallest viable market is the focus that, ironically and delightfully, leads to your growth.”

Como não recordar a série do tecto de vidro, e em especial a parte III.

Quando não se escolhem os clientes-alvo, quando não se assume que se vai ser odiado por uma parte do mercado, fica-se condenado ao que leva ao massacre de gigantes em Mongo: a suckiness.

Quem aposta na suckiness, porque acredita na competitividade que advém da produtividade elevada, da eficiência, joga que consegue ganhar à Amazon.

Excerto de: Seth Godin. “This Is Marketing”.

Generalidades versus granularidade

Via FB do Hélder F. cheguei a esta tabela "Industries with the fastest growing and most rapidly declining output".

Não pude deixar de recordar o que tinha lido durante a caminhada matinal:

"A company formulating its growth strategy needs to develop insights into trends, future growth rates, and market structures at much greater depth than the aggregate industry level. Insights into sub-industries, segments, categories, and micro-markets are the building blocks of portfolio choices. They are indispensable for companies seeking to make the right decisions about where to compete.
...

...
Granularity level G0
The Earth—or, in our context, the global marketplace—is the highest level of aggregation with the least granularity: the ultimate segment of one. The world economy is growing by roughly 6.2 percent a year in nominal terms.
...
Granularity level G1
If we want to investigate why some companies grow at a rate that is faster or slower than about 6 percent, the first step is to divide up the economy. The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) carves it up into 24 broad industry groups ranging from telecommunications services to energy to biotech.
...
Granularity level G2
Frankly, decisions at the G1 level (such as whether to be in telecommunications, energy, or biotech) are not within the ambit of most companies, so we need not dwell on them here. To get to a deeper level of granularity, we can break down the 24 groups into 151 industries by using other readily available GICS statistics. For instance, the “food, beverages, and tobacco” group breaks down into the component industries “food,” “beverages,” and “tobacco.”
...
Granularity level G3
Each industry can then be divided up again both by sub-industry and by market (country or region). Within the food industry, for instance, two examples of sub-industries might include frozen foods or savories, oils, and dressings.
In analyzing companies’ performance we found that it was usually possible to reach the G3 level of granularity by taking the finest level of data that companies report to the markets. Provided we have access to enough information, we can zoom in on individual sub-industries in individual markets: frozen foods in China, say.
...
Granularity level G4
Sometimes it is possible to use proprietary databases and internal company data to dig deeper than the level at which companies normally report. The definition of the G4 level of granularity varies slightly from industry to industry, but, in essence, it’s the level of categories within sub-industries (such as ice cream within frozen foods) or customer segments within a broad product or service category (such as weight-conscious snackers). The G4 level is important: it represents the minimum level of granularity at which companies need to operate when setting growth priorities and making decisions about resource allocation.
...
Granularity level G5
This is a view of the world at the level of individual customers and transactions —the ultimate segment of one, numbering many billions. [Moi ici: Levar ao extremo o B2I (2018 e 2013)]

Trechos retirados de "The Granularity of Growth - How to Identify the Sources of Growth and Drive Enduring Company Performance" the P. Viguerie, S. Smit e M. Baghai 

"too much bread?" (parte II)

Parte I.

"If “the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do,” as Michael Porter famously said in a seminal HBR article, then the essence of execution is truly not doing it. That sounds simple, but it’s surprisingly hard for organizations to kill existing initiatives, even when they don’t align with new strategies. Instead, leaders keep layering on initiatives, which can lead to severe overload at levels below the executive team.
.
Sometimes leaders are unaware of all the initiatives under way and their impact on the organization. In other cases organizational politics conspires to let initiatives continue long after they should have run their course. Either way, overload can result in costly productivity and quality problems and employee burnout."

Há dias escrevia aqui:

"E para deixar tudo claro, não faz mal nenhum explicitar o que não é o nosso negócio"

Agora encontro:

"Establishing overall priorities without deciding what to cut.
Leadership teams often engage in prioritization exercises that define and communicate where people should focus their energy. However, they undermine those efforts if they don’t also do the hard work of explicitly deciding what trade-offs to make and what has to stop."

Trechos retirados de "Too Many Projects"

Qual é a prioridade?

"What works for a company at day (or dollar) one probably won't work for that company at day (or dollar) one thousand, let alone 1 million. And at dollar 100 million? No way. It's a very different game at each age and stage of company growth, and you need to be ready to adapt the way you play to account for the way the game is changing. To approach a business the same way at different ages and stages is as silly as parenting a toddler the same way you would parent a teenager.
...
There are four distinct stages that organizations mature through, which are determined by factors like revenue and valuation. It's these elements that inform the stage a company is in, far more than how long the company has been around.
...
Stage 1: Startup.
Revenue: $0 to $10 million
Valuation: $5 million to $50 million
Your priority: Whatever it takes...
Stage 2: Growth.
Revenue: $10 million to $25 million
Valuation: $50 million to $150 million
Your priority: Systems and processes...
Stage 3: Scale.
Revenue: $25 million to $100 million
Valuation: $150 million to $350 million
Your priority: Brand and culture...
Stage 4: Enterprise.
Revenue: $100-plus million
Valuation: $350 million to $1-plus billion
Your priority: Culture or die"

Interessante, relacionar a prioridade do Estágio 1, com aquilo a que chamo tecto de vidro, uma justificação para não dar o salto para o estágio 2.

Trechos retirados de "$1 to $1 Billion: A 4-Stage Formula for Company Growth"

"who don’t focus"

"Many salespeople fail to develop new business because they’re wandering aimlessly. Too often, they’re not locked in on a strategically selected, focused list of target customers or prospects.
.
Sometimes they fail because they don’t invest the time and brain power to ensure they are calling on the right accounts. Even the best talent will have a hard time succeeding if their efforts are directed in the wrong direction. However, more common than flat-out calling on the wrong list are salespeople who don’t focus on the list they have. Salespeople are famous for lack of discipline and losing focus. They attempt to call on an account (once), but don’t get anywhere. Instead of sharpening their weapons and continuing to attack the same strategically selected targets, they turn and pursue a new set of prospects. This constant change of direction becomes their death knell because they never gain traction against the defined target set.
.
In my personal sales experience and what I’ve seen from other top performers, new business success usually results from a combination of perseverance, creativity, and resilience while staying laser-focused on a well-chosen, finite list of target prospects."

Trecho retirado de "New Sales.Simplified" de Mike Weiberg.

"Lack of focus"

"They Have Awful Target Account Selection and a Lack of Focus.
Many salespeople fail to develop new business because they’re wan-dering aimlessly. Too often, they’re not locked in on a strategically selected, focused list of target customers or prospects.
Sometimes they fail because they don’t invest the time and brain power to ensure they are calling on the right accounts. Even the best talent will have a hard time succeeding if their efforts are directed in the wrong direction. However, more common than flat-out calling on the wrong list are salespeople who don’t focus on the list they have. Salespeople are famous for lack of discipline and losing focus. They attempt to call on an account (once), but don’t get anywhere. Instead of sharpening their weapons and continuing to attack the same strategically selected targets, they turn and pursue a new set of prospects. This constant change of direction becomes their death knell because they never gain traction against the defined target set.
In my personal sales experience and what I’ve seen from other top performers, new business success usually results from a combination of perseverance, creativity, and resilience while staying laser-focused on a well-chosen, finite list of target prospects."

Tanta coisa batida neste blogue... clientes-alvo, posicionamento estratégico, focalização.

Trecho retirado de "New Sales.Simplified" de Mike Weiberg.

E na sua empresa?

Esta descrição é tremenda:

"1.  The sales team was not focused on a finite strategic list of target accounts (including both growable existing customers and ideal profile prospects) that they were absolutely committed to proactively pursuing.
.
2.  Their messaging (“sales story”) was focused much more on their products and services rather than the issues they addressed for customers (problems solved, pains removed, opportunities captured, improved results)…the outcomes they achieved.
.
3.  The salespeople spent a pathetically low percentage of their time actually selling compared to the amount of time they were either babysitting/over-servicing accounts, putting out fires, or doing administrative and internal corporate work."

Os pontos 1 e 2 são muito comuns aqui no blogue. Falta de focalização e mais concentração nos outputs que se produzem do que nos inputs que os clientes precisam para transformar a sua vida.

Trecho retirado de "3 Very Different Companies with 3 Very Similar Sales Challenges"

"Strategy is only strategic when it allows you to choose what not to do"

"Strategy is only strategic when it allows you to choose what not to do. Focus is only focused if it helps you do less or say no more often.
.
Put a check next to the points below that you agree with. The more checks, the greater your focus.

• You can count on one hand the most critical things you must deliver this year. [Moi ici: Um bom desafio para quem está agora a iniciar o ano. Têm algum objectivo crítico para este ano? Ou será que têm demasiados?]

• If I were to ask you and your boss your top three priorities, you’d both give the same answer. [Moi ici: Outro bom desafio... fez-me recordar a carta que Zander pede aos alunos no início do ano. Quantas chefias têm, ou arranjam, tempo para se sentar com os seus subordinados directos para definirem objectivos?]

• You and each of your direct reports agree on their top three priorities.  

• You made a deliberate, considered decision in the past month to stop doing something. [Moi ici: Como é o algoritmo? Encontra um desperdício, remove-o, divulga. Repete todos os dias.]  

• You reviewed and refocused your priorities in the past month.  

• You regularly block time on your calendar to create space to work on your top priorities.   

• You regularly chose to stop, or not to start or sponsor, work that is under-resourced.  

• You regularly chose to stop, or not to start or sponsor, work that is not aligned with the company strategies." [Moi ici: Ai que ataque de cinismo... sou Diógenes]

Como não recordar:

"A gestão de topo deve assegurar-se que todos os trabalhadores conhecem os Compromissos Estratégicos e compreendam como podem contribuir, a partir do seu posto de trabalho, para a sua execução. Este ponto é tão importante que a ISO 9001 tem uma cláusula só sobre ele (7.3 Consciencialização).
.
A gestão de topo deve assegurar-se que todos os trabalhadores sabem quais são os objectivos da empresa para os quais podem contribuir com o seu trabalho e, sabem qual sua a evolução."

Trecho de "Pacing for Growth: Why Intelligent Restraint Drives Long-term Success" de Alison Eyring.

"what we don’t do matters as much as what we do"

"completing an endurance event has little to do with vision. My vision helped get me started, but it didn’t get me across the finish line. What got me there was focus: being absolutely clear what mattered most, investing my energy disproportionally, following through on a plan, and making the right choices about what to do and saying no to other opportunities. In short, focus enabled me to make the trade-offs I needed to achieve my vision. It always does, in training and in business. The first Rule of Intelligent Restraint, “focus overrules vision,” reminds us that what we don’t do matters as much as what we do.
...
While some visions are motivating and many are translated into specific goals, too many become empty exhortations. Broad statements of hope—whether they are called a vision, growth goals, or aspirations—often mean little to employees and fail to drive growth.
...
Too often, we create a great vision for growth and then allow ourselves and others to get distracted. We fail to build the capabilities needed to achieve the vision because we don’t know where to focus or don’t have the discipline to follow through on the focus.
...
Strategy is only strategic when it allows you to choose what not to do. Focus is only focused if it helps you do less or say no more often."

Trechos retirados de "Pacing for Growth: Why Intelligent Restraint Drives Long-term Success" de Alison Eyring.

"focus overrules vision"

"completing an endurance event has little to do with vision. My vision helped get me started, but it didn't get me across the finish line. What got me there was focus: being absolutely clear what mattered most, investing my energy disproportionally, following through on a plan, and making the right choices about what to do and saying no to other opportunities. In short, focus enabled me to make the trade-offs I needed to achieve my vision. It always does, in training and in business. The first Rule of Intelligent Restraint, "focus overrules vision," reminds us that what we don't do matters as much as what we do."

Trecho retirado de "Pacing for Growth" de Alison Eyring.