The diagnostic framework here cuts through by asking what you own vs what you optimize for. Most strategy decks list priorities without asking whether those priorities are even yours to claim, and the empty column exercise makes that brutaly visible. The renter-owner metaphor works because it gets at something deeper than competition: renters are always reactive becuase they're working within boundries someone else set, while owners get to define the game itself.
You see it. The renter-owner distinction explains why some companies can move with confidence while others are always reacting - even when they're 'winning' deals.
Curious: when you think about your own strategic priorities, how many would you say you actually own vs. optimizing within someone else's boundaries?
The diagnostic framework here cuts through by asking what you own vs what you optimize for. Most strategy decks list priorities without asking whether those priorities are even yours to claim, and the empty column exercise makes that brutaly visible. The renter-owner metaphor works because it gets at something deeper than competition: renters are always reactive becuase they're working within boundries someone else set, while owners get to define the game itself.
You see it. The renter-owner distinction explains why some companies can move with confidence while others are always reacting - even when they're 'winning' deals.
Curious: when you think about your own strategic priorities, how many would you say you actually own vs. optimizing within someone else's boundaries?