Customer research and enterprise strategy are routinely broken into organizational silos: executive leadership sets long-term strategy in boardrooms, product teams debate functional features in isolation, and customer experience groups map service touchpoints in separate workshops. The result is strategic incoherence, initiative paralysis, and expensive customer churn. Three of modern business’s most enduring frameworks emerged to bridge these divides from the trenches of practice: A.G. Lafley and Roger Martin’s Playing to Win, Tony Ulwick and Clayton Christensen’s Jobs to be Done, and Dave Gray and Lynn Shostack’s empathy and journey mapping. This paper traces their historical lineages and examines the peer-reviewed cognitive, social, and organizational science that helps explain why their core habits tend to work: building shared mental models, testing the shakiest assumptions first, replacing imagined intent with what customers actually did, and focusing customer experience on the moments people remember. Finally, it outlines an integrated, three-tool pipeline and sets clear boundaries around what the research does and does not claim.
The silo trap: three tools, one pipeline
In high-stakes enterprise environments, strategy and customer understanding frequently drift apart. Executive leadership crafts top-down strategy declarations that read like aspirational wish lists without operational ground truth. Concurrently, product and marketing teams measure functional feature requests, remaining blind to why customers switch or churn.
Sequenced well, these three frameworks form a continuous decision pipeline. Each answers a question the next one needs.
| Tool | What it finds | The question it answers |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Jobs to be Done | The functional, emotional, and social progress the customer is striving to achieve within a specific circumstance | What progress is the customer hiring us for? |
| 2. Customer empathy and journey mapping | The path the customer takes to make that progress, with its hidden friction, broken handoffs, and moments of relief | Where does the experience break down or shine? |
| 3. Playing to Win | A cascade of hard organizational choices built on those insights, with the riskiest assumptions isolated and tested | Which integrated choices do we commit to make? |
Where you start depends on where you stall
A leadership team paralyzed by competing initiatives enters through Playing to Win to force trade-offs, and discovers it lacks verified customer evidence.
A product team battling unexplained churn enters through journey mapping to diagnose where delivery fractures, and finds it has targeted the wrong core job.
Playing to Win: from corporate turnaround to five disciplined choices
When A.G. Lafley stepped into the CEO role at Procter & Gamble in June 2000, the consumer goods giant was reeling from fragmented brand portfolios, slowed organic growth, and failed product launches. Partnering with Roger Martin, then dean of the Rotman School of Management, Lafley instituted a disciplined approach to strategy that culminated in their 2013 book, Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works.
Strategy was stripped of corporate jargon and redefined as an integrated set of five choices, each of which has to fit the others.
In their 2012 Harvard Business Review article with Jan Rivkin and Nicolaj Siggelkow, Lafley and Martin introduced the framework’s sharpest tool: the question “What would have to be true?” Instead of debating which executive has the most persuasive opinion, teams lay out the assumptions that must hold for an option to succeed, identify the condition they doubt most, and design a low-cost test to evaluate it.
Playing to Win is a practitioner discipline rather than an academic theory. Research in cognitive science and organizational psychology helps explain why its habits tend to help.
| Choice | What it decides |
|---|---|
| What is our winning aspiration? | The guiding purpose and benchmark of success |
| Where will we play? | Which customer segments, geographies, product categories, and channels to enter, and which to deliberately avoid |
| How will we win there? | The sustainable competitive advantage: cost leadership or distinct differentiation |
| What capabilities must be in place? | The reinforcing activities required to deliver on the choice |
| What management systems are required? | The metrics, governance, and review cadences that sustain execution |
Strategic consensus over slogans
A meta-analysis of strategic consensus found a modest positive link between top teams’ agreement on strategy and organizational performance, strongest when the agreement is about priorities (Kellermanns et al., 2011).
Shared mental models
Across studies, teams that share an understanding of their tasks and roles tend to coordinate better and perform better (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010).
Less role ambiguity
Role ambiguity, which vague strategy tends to create, is associated with lower job performance (Tubre & Collins, 2000).
A scientific approach to strategy
In randomized controlled trials of early-stage ventures, founders taught to treat their strategy as hypotheses to test were more likely to drop or pivot weak ideas than those in control groups (Camuffo et al., 2020; replicated at larger scale in 2024).
Jobs to be Done: from a failed hardware launch to “hiring” progress
In 1984, Tony Ulwick observed the market failure of the IBM PCjr. Despite extensive customer survey data, the product missed because IBM asked customers what features they wanted rather than understanding the functional outcomes they were trying to achieve. Ulwick spent the next decade developing Customer-Driven Mapping (CD-MAP), later Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI), at Strategyn, treating a customer’s objective as an enduring process with measurable steps.
Ulwick shared his methodology with Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School in 2000. Christensen popularized the concept in The Innovator’s Solution (2003) and later in Competing Against Luck (2016), with the metaphor that customers do not simply buy products; they “hire” them to make progress under specific constraints. Collaborator Bob Moesta developed much of the interview practice, unearthing the functional, emotional, and social anxieties that accompany a customer’s decision to switch from the status quo.
Christensen liked to quote Theodore Levitt’s maxim: customers do not want a quarter-inch drill; they want a quarter-inch hole. The adage itself is older, traced to advertising as early as 1942.
Jobs to be Done is also a practitioner lens. The research behind it is about how people decide and change.
Perspective-getting, not perspective-taking
Across 25 experiments, imagining another person’s thoughts or feelings (perspective-taking) did not make people more accurate about them. Asking them directly (perspective-getting) did (Eyal, Steffel & Epley, 2018).
The intention–behavior gap
A meta-analysis of experiments found that changes in what people intend produce much smaller changes in what they actually do (Webb & Sheeran, 2006). By asking about the customer’s last real switch, Jobs to be Done interviews anchor on what customers did rather than what they say they will do.
Push, pull, and the status quo
Customer switching tends to follow the push of current dissatisfaction and the pull of a better alternative, held back by switching costs and habit (Marx, 2025). People also tend to favor the status quo more than its merits justify (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988).
A few good interviews go a long way
In Griffin and Hauser’s study, 20 to 30 one-on-one customer interviews were estimated to surface about 90% of customer needs (Griffin & Hauser, 1993).
Empathy and journey mapping: from visual ideation to backstage architecture
In the mid-2000s, designers at the consultancy XPLANE began sketching “big heads” on whiteboards to break internal teams out of inward-looking assumptions. Dave Gray structured these drawings into the empathy map, which captures what a customer sees, hears, says, does, thinks, and feels, published in Gamestorming (2010).
Service operations needed structure too. In 1984, G. Lynn Shostack proposed the service blueprint in Harvard Business Review, mapping front-stage customer touchpoints alongside the backstage processes that produce them. Mary Jo Bitner and colleagues expanded blueprinting into a cross-functional technique (2008), and Katherine Lemon and Peter Verhoef reviewed what is known about customer experience across the journey (2016).
Walking a journey step by step tends to counter two common blind spots.
The curse of knowledge
Better-informed people struggle to set aside what they know when predicting what less-informed people will understand or do (Camerer, Loewenstein & Weber, 1989). So every step on our journey maps is marked heard or assumed.
The peak-end rule
People tend not to remember an experience as an average of its moments. A 2022 meta-analysis found that the most intense moment (the peak) and the ending carry substantial weight in how an experience is remembered (Alaybek et al., 2022). That gives teams a reason to put their effort into the peaks and the ending of a journey, the parts customers are most likely to remember.
How Magnet Labs installs the disciplines
Magnet Labs turns these three lenses into applied workshops that build team capability. Each runs as a 90-minute lab or as a half day.
| Insight Lab | Core method and canvas | The question it answers | Half day |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1.8 Play to Win | Choice cascade canvas and the “What would have to be true?” matrix | Which five hard choices do we make, and which assumption do we test first? | P1.8 HD: several options, a cascade drafted for each, and tests that let real-world evidence choose |
| P1.9 Jobs to be Done & Value Map | Jobs to be Done progress canvas and value proposition map | What progress is the customer trying to make, and where does our value deliver it? | P1.9 HD: jobs across personas, clustered and ranked by importance and satisfaction |
| P1.10 Customer Empathy Mapping | Journey canvas in the customer’s words, with the peak and the end marked | Where does the customer experience break down, and which moment must we fix? | P1.10 HD: three or four personas on one journey, overlaid, with front-stage and backstage aligned |
What we deliberately do not claim
We state explicitly what the research does not support.
No validation as complete packages. We do not claim that Playing to Win, Jobs to be Done, or journey mapping have been validated in peer-reviewed trials as unified business systems. They are disciplined practitioner frameworks; peer-reviewed research supports specific habits and inquiry methods inside them.
No “decision fatigue”. We do not claim that committing to strategic choices in advance preserves a finite reservoir of willpower. The theory of ego depletion behind that idea failed large-scale, preregistered multi-lab replications.
No brain claims. We do not claim that journey mapping or Jobs to be Done interviews “activate” specific brain regions (for example, “lighting up the insula”). Laboratory brain-imaging studies of pain or empathy do not map onto business teams working around sticky notes.
No causal proof from P&G. P&G’s turnaround during Lafley’s tenure was extraordinary, but business history is not a controlled experiment. It shows where the discipline came from, not what caused the results.
Sources and provenance
This paper combines the history of three practitioner frameworks, from primary and publisher sources, with peer-reviewed research in cognitive psychology, organizational behavior, and behavioral economics on the specific habits our labs teach. The pipeline framing and the lab designs are Magnet Labs’ synthesis.
References
- Alaybek, B., Dalal, R. S., Fyffe, S., et al. (2022). All’s well that ends (and peaks) well? A meta-analysis of the peak-end rule and duration neglect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 170, 104149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104149
- Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166446
- Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97(5), 1232–1254. https://doi.org/10.1086/261651
- Camuffo, A., Cordova, A., Gambardella, A., & Spina, C. (2020). A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision making: Evidence from a randomized control trial. Management Science, 66(2), 564–586. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3249
- Camuffo, A., Gambardella, A., Messinese, D., Novelli, E., Paolucci, E., & Spina, C. (2024). A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision-making: Large-scale replication and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 45(6), 1209–1237. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3580
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017328
- Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115
- Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The voice of the customer. Marketing Science, 12(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.12.1.1
- Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Floyd, S. W., Lechner, C., & Shaw, J. C. (2011). To agree or not to agree? A meta-analytical review of strategic consensus and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.02.004
- Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420
- Marx, P. (2025). The push-pull-mooring model of consumer service switching: A meta-analytical review to guide future research. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 35(7), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-06-2024-0201
- Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
- Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Management, 26(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600104
- Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
- Practitioner sources: Christensen, C. M., Hall, T., Dillon, K., & Duncan, D. S. (2016). Competing Against Luck: The Story of Innovation and Customer Choice. HarperBusiness. Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers. O’Reilly Media. Lafley, A. G., & Martin, R. L. (2013). Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works. Harvard Business Review Press. Lafley, A. G., Martin, R. L., Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2012). Bringing science to the art of strategy. Harvard Business Review, 90(9), 56–66. Shostack, G. L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 133–139. Ulwick, A. W. (2005). What Customers Want: Using Outcome-Driven Innovation to Create Breakthrough Products and Services. McGraw-Hill.
- Histories: P&G’s 2009 announcement of A.G. Lafley’s retirement (sales more than doubled; billion-dollar brands from 10 to 22); Strategyn’s published history and Ulwick biography; XPLANE’s account of the empathy map’s origins; Quote Investigator on the drill-and-hole adage (versions from a 1942 newspaper advertisement); Magnet Labs Innovation Impact Research (N = 383), published as The Human Advantage Gap.
Questions this paper answers
Who created Playing to Win, and what is its core innovation?
A.G. Lafley, P&G’s CEO, and Roger Martin of the Rotman School of Management developed it during P&G’s turnaround between 2000 and 2009. Its core innovation is treating strategy as an integrated cascade of five choices, tested with the question “What would have to be true?”
What is the core distinction of Jobs to be Done?
Created by Tony Ulwick (outcome-driven innovation) and popularized by Clayton Christensen and Bob Moesta, Jobs to be Done shifts the focus from product features to the progress a customer seeks. Customers don’t simply buy products; they hire them to make functional, emotional, and social progress in a specific circumstance.
How does customer empathy mapping differ from a sales funnel?
A funnel measures pipeline progress from the vendor’s point of view. Empathy and journey mapping walks the journey in order from the customer’s chair, recording their own words, emotional friction, and backstage handoffs, with the peak and the end marked.
Why does Magnet Labs combine these three frameworks?
Because they form one chain of reasoning: Jobs to be Done identifies what customer progress matters, journey mapping shows where that progress breaks down, and Playing to Win commits the organization to the five integrated choices needed to act on it.
How to cite this paper
Shenbagaraman, G., Zmuda, C., & Arbter, A. (2026). Choices, Jobs and Journeys: Grounding Strategy, Progress, and Experience in Human Cognition. Magnet Labs White Paper. https://magnetlabs.io/research/choices-jobs-journeys
Please link to this page when referencing the framework and the sources listed under provenance.
Download the white paper
The complete paper, in color or print-friendly black & white.
Put it into practice
Three labs in the Conscious Leader pillar, each run as a 90-minute lab or as a half-day session for several options or personas.