Swedish Singer Loreen with the trophy after winning the Eurovision Song contest 2023 on May 14, ... [+]
Swedish singer Loreen made history on Saturday as she became only the second person to win the Eurovision Song Contest twice. The result should have been no surprise to the 180 million viewers who tuned in. She was the bookies’ favourite after all.
However, her success reveals an interesting lesson. Back in 2012, Loreen’s winning song Euphoria was fresh and edgy. The same cannot be said for this year’s entry. Tattoo has a similar feel to Euphoria – and that was part of its winning formula. For strategists, this is a reminder that innovation is not a goal in itself. If you have a great idea, there is nothing wrong with repeating it.
Why we recycle good ideas
There is a vast academic literature that looks at performance feedback. The consensus among scholars is that successful individuals are less likely to diverge from their current knowledge trajectory. The logic is as simple as it is appealing: you don’t know how new ideas will be received, but your expertise is perfectly aligned with something that works well. So why change?
In music, the German pop duo Modern Talking is probably best known for that. Every song was the same, and every one of them was a hit. The formula was so appealing that 10 years after the band split up, Dieter Bohlen and Thomas Anders reunited to release a remix of their old songs (just a bit more beat this time). Once again it worked, earning them a World Music Award for bestselling German artists.
It’s a bit more complicated than copying an old idea
Modern Talking’s approach to reheating its recipe for success is an outlier. But many great bands have a very distinct and recognizable style. Status Quo, U2 or more recently Coldplay come to mind. The same is noticeable for companies who thrive for long periods of time.
McKinsey, the consulting firm, for example, has consistently relied on three pillars. First, they hire top talent that works crazy hours. The rational is that this produces better results than spreading the work among a larger group of lesser talent. Second, they leverage strong ties to large clients, particularly through a network of more than 30,000 alumni. Finally, they rely on the mantra that “no manager gets fired for hiring McKinsey”. After all, they seem to have access to the secret sauce. While this distinct style stays in place, the firm still makes adjustments to align with big trends, for instance growing new services in data science or sustainability.
The tricky bit is identifying the core elements of your strategy style and applying them when challenges hit you. One way to think about this is in terms of addressability. You can only solve issues in a way that builds on your unique way of doing things. That’s not a limitation but an opportunity to project past experiences into the future.
Repetition helps with execution
There is a strong temptation to limit strategy to the idea it represents. However, the most common reason why a strategy fails is inadequate execution. In a survey of 500 senior executives from large companies, 90 percent admitted that they “fail to achieve their strategic goals because they do not implement well”, while 53 percent agree that “inadequate delivery capability puts them at a competitive disadvantage”.
For those on the operational frontend, strategy is usually far removed. The abstract headlines filtering through are hard to translate. It’s not resistance per se, but the urgency of dealing with more immediate challenges that prevent new strategies from getting traction. If the adjustments to a strategy are less dramatic, this is less of a problem. In the long run, most companies work out a way to integrate strategic ideas into their business. But not overnight. If the fundamentals change frequently, the organization does not have sufficient time to learn and understand.
In principle the notion of an agile organization is great, but most companies are not built that way. Repeating great strategies – with important but not major refreshments – is often more appropriate.
