The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.
Michael Porter
Strategy is about making choices, trade-offs; it's about deliberately choosing to be different.
The thing is, continuity of strategic direction and continuous improvement in how you do things are absolutely consistent with each other. In fact, they're mutually reinforcing.
Strategy 101 is about choices: You can't be all things to all people.
The essence of strategy is that you must set limits on what you're trying to accomplish.
Change brings opportunities. On the other hand, change can be confusing.
The company without a strategy is willing to try anything.
The best CEOs I know are teachers, and at the core of what they teach is strategy.
Innovation is the central issue in economic prosperity.
If all you're trying to do is essentially the same thing as your rivals, then it's unlikely that you'll be very successful.
The underlying principles of strategy are enduring, regardless of technology or the pace of change.
There's a fundamental distinction between strategy and operational effectiveness.
Millennials are more aware of society's many challenges than previous generations and less willing to accept maximizing shareholder value as a sufficient goal for their work. They are looking for a broader social purpose and want to work somewhere that has such a purpose.
Sound strategy starts with having the right goal.
Finally, strategy must have continuity. It can't be constantly reinvented.
Good leaders need a positive agenda, not just an agenda of dealing with crisis.
If your goal is anything but profitability - if it's to be big, or to grow fast, or to become a technology leader - you'll hit problems.
A strategy delineates a territory in which a company seeks to be unique.
So companies have to be very schizophrenic. On one hand, they have to maintain continuity of strategy. But they also have to be good at continuously improving.
The ability to change constantly and effectively is made easier by high-level continuity.
Billions are wasted on ineffective philanthropy. Philanthropy is decades behind business in applying rigorous thinking to the use of money.
You can't have a healthy society unless you have healthy companies that are making a profit, that are employing people and that are growing.
Being an American doesn't mean that you're guaranteed a high wage. You have to be productive, and we have to create a very low-cost, efficient place to do business, and we've let all that slip in America.
Unfortunately, I'm an engineer. I'm always thinking about, what's the task and how do I get it done? And some of my tasks are pretty broad, and pretty fuzzy, and pretty funky, but that's the way I think.
Ultimately, health care fails the most basic test. It's not organized around the needs of the patient.
In a period of economic downturn, the overwhelming instinct is to pare back, cut costs, and lay off. If you do that, do so with your strategy in mind. The worst mistake is to cut across the board. Instead, reconnect and recommit to a clear strategy that will distinguish yourself from others.
Health care historically has been a very siloed field that's organized around medical specialties - urology, cardiac surgery, and so forth - and around the supply of these specialty services. The patient is the ping-pong ball that moves from service to service.
Technology has given us this wonderful opportunity to have low energy costs. We have to seize that, rather than keep debating and discussing and fighting over it.
In America, the problems of poverty and low income, particularly for minorities, are disproportionately focused in the inner cities. Shining a spotlight on the businesses growing in these communities is proof that any community has the potential for entrepreneurship.
The chief strategist of an organization has to be the leader - the CEO.
As a multisport athlete, I was always fascinated with competition and how to win. At HBS and later at the Harvard Department of Economics, I was drawn to the field of competition and strategy because it tackles perhaps the most basic question in both business management and industrial economics: What determines corporate performance?
Companies operating in urban communities have a tremendous ripple effect.
I think that, too many times, business has been seen as acting in its narrow self-interest rather than, essentially, contributing more broadly to society. I think a lot of that is unintentional; I don't think that many managers are deliberately trying to be unethical or are not trying to be sensitive to social needs.
Companies understand that if their employees are sick, it's really expensive. So despite the rhetoric I hear, thank God employers are still in the health-care system.
America used to be a uniquely productive, low-cost place to do business. We had efficient infrastructure. We had limited regulation. We believed in the market.
I teach in the medical school, the School of Public Health, the Kennedy School of Government, and the Business School. And it's the best perch... because most of my work crosses boundaries.
I'm really puzzled by why people in societies find it difficult to work collaboratively together with other people in societies.
As minorities and other immigrant groups become more important to our economy, the inner city is a crucible that gives us an early look at phenomena that are going to be spreading more broadly in the economy over time.
