The Strategy Choice Cascade, explained properly.
The five questions at the heart of Playing to Win. Not a checklist: a portrait, where each answer must make the others more true.
The cascade, in order: a Winning Aspiration, what does winning look like; Where to Play, on which field; How to Win, by what theory of advantage; Must-Have Capabilities, with what muscles; and enabling management systems, sustained by what nervous system. Five boxes that fit on a napkin, which is precisely why they are so often filled in without being answered.
The two structural rules
Martin insists on two rules that turn the boxes into a system. First, Where to Play and How to Win are inseparable. Choosing the most attractive market first and then hunting for a way to win there is the most common cascade failure; a market is only attractive relative to a way of winning in it, so the pair must be chosen together. Second, the cascade runs both directions. Aspirations constrain choices downward, but capability realities push back upward, and a cascade that only flows down produces fantasy: a way of winning the company cannot actually execute, sustained by systems it does not have.
Validating a cascade
A drafted cascade is a set of claims, and claims get tested. The Opposite Test checks each choice is a choice. The Can't-Won't Test checks the advantage is protected. What Would Have to Be True converts disagreement about the answers into an examinable list of conditions. The whole method applied end to end is the Olay case study, still the cleanest worked example in print.
The test of the whole
The property that makes five answers one strategy is integration: examine any pair of choices and ask whether each strengthens the other. Reinforcing pairs make a portrait; coexisting answers make a list, and lists do not compound.
How this connects to OKRs
In our methodology, OKRs live at the cascade's execution edge: the quarterly bets that test whether the theory of advantage is working in the market. The mapping is precise rather than decorative, choices cascade logically, goals do not cascade bureaucratically, and a team that can recall the five answers can set its own goals without an approval chain, which is the whole argument of our alignment model.
Our synthesis of published thinking, Roger Martin and A.G. Lafley, Playing to Win (2013), and Martin’s subsequent writing, sources credited. Read the originals: they’re excellent.
Reading about method is not the same as running it. We install this system and build the capability that stays.
Turn your cascade into executed strategy →