Introduction

How Winners Win

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union stunned the United States and the world by launching the first satellite, Sputnik I, into orbit. This feat suggested that the USSR had made a quantum leap forward in technology, which posed a serious threat to US national security. Would the USSR attack the United States with the same powerful rockets that had propelled Sputnik into orbit? The United States was so shocked by this historic event that the phrase “Sputnik Moment” has come to mean a point in time when a competitor recognizes it is falling behind its rival.

The Sputnik launch was a microcosm of the much larger Cold War being waged by the world’s two most powerful nations. The Cold War pitted the Soviet Union against the United States in an ideological, political, economic, technological, and military struggle for dominant world influence. Each was eager to push its global agenda: communism for the Soviet Union and democracy for the United States. Literally and figuratively, the highest form of competition between these two rivals was the so-called Space Race from 1955–1969.

Four years after Sputnik, the United States was blindsided again when the Soviet Union’s cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth in the Vostok 1 capsule. This event sent shockwaves and alarms through the United States. President John F. Kennedy and his cabinet understood that their nation was in fear of a potential Soviet missile attack from space. Kennedy knew the United States could not win this Space Race; the USSR had already won by launching the first satellite and the first human into orbit. Kennedy decided to change the game from the Space Race to the Moon Race. And he did it with four words: “Man on the Moon.”

On May 25, 1961, Kennedy recommended to Congress that the United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” He again proclaimed this goal to Americans and to the world in a speech on September 12, 1962, in Houston: “This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth… We choose to go to the Moon…because that challenge is one that we intend to win.”

Kennedy changed the “space game” by changing the measure by which the world would evaluate the two superpowers: the winning measure was not the “first man into space” but the “first man on the Moon.” He had moved the proverbial goal posts.

The day before his speech in 1962, Kennedy visited NASA in Houston for the first time. As the story goes, Kennedy saw a man in the hallway carrying a broom. “What do you do for NASA?” Kennedy asked. “I’m helping put a man on the Moon,” the janitor responded. This janitor understood the greater purpose of his role because of Kennedy’s 1961 speech. If he did his job cleaning and taking out the trash, he would enable NASA’s scientists, engineers, and astronauts to focus their time on their mission of putting a man on the Moon.

Kennedy changed the agenda from the Soviet Space Race to the US Man on the Moon with several winning Actions. He obtained an additional $9 billion in funding for NASA’s mission and ensured access to the nation’s best engineers, scientists, and technologies, including IBM’s cutting-edge computing system.

Tragically, John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, and never had the chance to see a man on the Moon. However, Kennedy’s lunar mission was fulfilled by his dedicated NASA team. On July 20, 1969, US astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first man on the Moon.

In its 2019 report Iconic Moves: Transforming Customer Expectations, the consulting firm Interbrand reflected on the role that Kennedy’s concise wording played in this unprecedented achievement. They interviewed Apollo 11 crew member Michael Collins, who spoke of Kennedy’s commitment as a “powerful driving force for the mission’s success.” He said, “The single-mindedness and clarity of that statement [the 1961 speech] worked as a true north throughout the years leading to the mission—helping overcome obstacles, speeding up processes, and providing everyone with a clear goal and timeline… The simplicity, the stark beauty of John Kennedy’s mandate…really helped us along to the Moon.”

Kennedy and the US won the Space Race by “changing the game” to the race to the Moon. This approach of changing the game is commonly used by politicians, especially during elections. Politicians call it “Changing the Agenda.” In political terms, a “Campaign Agenda” is the core, overarching concept that a candidate wants to convey to constituents—as well as the game the candidate forces his rivals to play. Kennedy’s concise, four-word Campaign Agenda of “Man on the Moon” and his supporting actions led to one of mankind’s greatest historical feats.

As a global competition consultant for over 35 years, I have found that leading companies also change the game with Campaign Agendas, not branding. Historically, conventional companies have primarily differentiated their brands by using marketing tactics. However, businesses like Apple, Starbucks, and Peloton have not played the traditional brand game; they have created their own game, executed their Agenda, and forced competitors to play by their rules.

In 1997, Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy before Steve Jobs propelled the company to become the world’s most valuable with his two-word Campaign Agenda of “Think Different.” Jeff Bezos led Amazon to become the earth’s dominant retailer by implementing his two-word Campaign Agenda of “Customer Obsession.” Starbucks went from adding one store per year to nearly four stores per day by executing a three-word Agenda, “The Third Place,” that transformed the global coffee business.

In just four years, Seedlip was able to dominate the non-alcoholic spirits category by playing an entirely new game. Peloton re-created the world-class studio cycling experience, while tiny Halo Top Ice Cream surpassed brand behemoth Unilever with its “Guilt-Free Ice Cream” game. Many other companies—including Google, Uber, Glossier, and Sweetgreen—have also changed the game to win in their markets. I call these companies “Transcenders” because they have risen above their conventional competitors by using more of a political playbook than a product playbook.

When I was a young sports fan, I was obsessed with finding an answer to a single question: why do some teams win, and others lose? I wondered how Alabama’s Crimson Tide football team would pummel my beloved Vanderbilt Commodores every year—the game was typically over by the second quarter. That was when I first realized that Alabama’s legendary coach Paul “Bear” Bryant had a winning system, heavily focused on better player recruiting and development.

Around the same time, I watched and marveled at how Coach John Wooden was guiding his UCLA Bruins to 88 straight wins—the longest stretch in men’s college basketball history—on his way to 10 NCAA titles in 12 years. I discovered that he won using his 15-block winning system called the “Pyramid of Success.” I would spend hours studying and analyzing games to understand how these and other legendary teams won so consistently.

As I got older, Alabama’s dominance over Vanderbilt—and most other teams—continued. ‘Bama has won 36 of the last 37 games against Vanderbilt, with the most recent victories coming under the leadership of renowned coach Nick Saban. In 2020, Saban surpassed Bear Bryant for the most college football championships because he, like Bryant, has a winning system. He calls it “The Process,” which focuses not on results, but on the factors that lead to those results: superior player identification, recruitment, development, practice, and game preparation. He adopted part of his system from his former coach and mentor, New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick. Belichick has won a record six National Football League Super Bowls by applying his “Do Your Job” winning system.

When I began to take more of an interest in business, I saw there was a “game” in business too—with clear winners and losers. With the same determination that I’d had with teams, I set out to study businesses to understand that game and how to win it.

As a business executive and consultant, I spent decades searching for a winning system for business, but no one and no book could quite explain why some businesses win and others lose. So, I decided to create a winning system.

My aha moment came during Senator Barack Obama’s presidential election campaign in 2008. I was captivated by the brilliant campaign communications and strategies that this little-known, first-term Senator used to beat two well-known political...