Anchor strategy on the stable job
When: A technology shift has the organisation in reactive mode. The roadmap thrashes with each announcement, strategy documents age in weeks, and the debate is entirely about the new technology rather than about customers.
The action: Restate the strategy at the level of the job, which does not change, rather than the solution, which does. Then evaluate each new technology as a candidate hire for the old job: does it serve the underserved outcomes better, cheaper, or for people currently excluded. The job gives the stable reference point that makes a fast-moving landscape assessable at all.
Forces: Job-level strategy sounds abstract next to the urgency of a technology moment, and holding the anchor can be misread as complacency. The opposite failure is real too, because a job restated too broadly justifies anything. Getting the altitude right is the judgement in the play.
Signals: Within weeks, new technologies get assessed against named outcomes rather than adopted or dismissed on vibes. The strategy document survives an announcement cycle without rewrite. At least one panicked initiative is retired because it served the technology rather than the job.
When not to: When the job itself is disappearing, because regulation, demography, or upstream change is removing the struggle, and the stable anchor would hold you to a sinking point. When the organisation uses the stability of the job as cover for ignoring a genuinely better hire.
Instance: Levitt's quarter-inch hole, the acknowledged ancestor, carried forward in Ulwick's argument that jobs stay stable while solutions change, with music listening as the canonical run: the job constant across formats from vinyl to streaming while every solution along the way was disrupted.
Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.