Surface, in writing first
Each function answers the six GTM questions alone before any discussion, senior leader last. Groups tend to miss what only one member knows unless it is surfaced first.
Velocity EngineExecution Game
GTM Strategy & Design
from every function running its own playbook→to one GTM system, with the seams named
The Goal
Find the seams in the go-to-market system, where functions hold different answers about the buyer, the offer or the motion, and settle or test the one that costs most.
Ideal For
Leadership teams where Sales, Marketing, Product and Customer Success tell different stories about the buyer, teams entering a new market or changing motion, and any team re-litigating the same GTM decisions every quarter.
The Shift
From every function running its own playbook to one GTM system, with the seams named.
The Science
Teams that share an understanding of the task and of each other’s roles tend to coordinate and perform better, and groups tend to miss what only one member knows unless it is surfaced first. Firms where sales and marketing share information and work closely tended to perform better, and a goal no group can reach alone tends to reduce conflict between groups. Agreement alone isn’t enough: settle the specific choices that matter and test the risky ones.
GTM Strategy & Design, step by step
- Write who the buyer is, aloneBefore anyone speaks, each function writes one sentence: “Our buyer is…” Read them out, senior leader last.
- Surface the six answersEach function answers six GTM questions in writing, alone: North star, Target, Value, Motion, Capability, Learn.
- Find the seamsPut the answers side by side. Wherever two functions answer the same question differently, that is a seam. Name what each one costs: time, pipeline, customers, trust.
- Pre-mortem the costliest seam“It’s a year from now and our GTM motion failed because of this seam. What happened?” Everyone writes one reason.
- Settle or test itDecide it now with an owner, or turn it into a test (often a 30-day growth loop) with a signal, a date and an interim rule.
- Commit, then build“By [date], [owner] brings the decision or test result to the leadership meeting; until then, [the interim rule].” When the whole system needs building, run the half day.
The techniques, and why they work
Find the seams
Put the answers side by side, mark where they differ and what each difference costs. Teams that share an understanding of the task tend to coordinate and perform better.
Settle or test the costliest seam
Decide it now with an owner, or turn it into a test with a date and an interim rule. Agreement alone isn’t enough; settle the choices that matter and test the risky ones.
Selected research
- DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53.
- Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54–75.
- Homburg, C., Jensen, O., & Krohmer, H. (2008). Configurations of marketing and sales: A taxonomy. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 133–154.
- Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349–356.
- Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2005). The lack of consensus about strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. Journal of Management, 31(5), 719–737.
Also runs as a half day · P3.10 HD
GTM Strategy & Design – Half Day
Half day (3 h 30 min), “From choices to a system”: every function writes each of nine fields before discussion, each field gets one owner, and a consistency pass settles or tests every break, with a 90-day review.
from strategy on a slide, playbooks by function→to nine fields, nine owners, one system
The Goal
Turn the team’s strategic choices into one go-to-market system, field by field, and check the fields against each other before anyone executes.
Ideal For
Leadership teams entering a new market or changing motion, teams that have made their strategic choices but still run separate playbooks, and teams building an annual or half-year GTM plan.
The Science
Teams that share an understanding of the task and of each other’s roles tend to coordinate and perform better, and groups tend to miss what only one member knows unless it is surfaced first. Firms where sales and marketing share information and work closely tended to perform better, and a goal no group can reach alone tends to reduce conflict between groups. Agreement alone isn’t enough: settle the specific choices that matter and test the risky ones.
The techniques, and why they work
Write each field first
Every function writes its answer before discussion, senior leader last, and the six GTM questions come in as written pre-work. Groups tend to miss what only one member knows unless it is surfaced first.
Build the system in three tiers
Strategic direction, GTM design, and the operating model and learning plan, with one owner per field and a north star every function owns. Teams that share an understanding of the task tend to coordinate better, and a goal no group can reach alone tends to reduce conflict between groups.
Check the chain, then settle or test
Walk the nine fields against each other, and settle or test every break with an owner and a date. Agreement alone isn’t enough; settle the choices that matter and test the risky ones.
Selected research
- DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53.
- Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54–75.
- Homburg, C., Jensen, O., & Krohmer, H. (2008). Configurations of marketing and sales: A taxonomy. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 133–154.
- Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349–356.
- Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2005). The lack of consensus about strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. Journal of Management, 31(5), 719–737.
From the research
The thinking behind this lab, published in full: