Despite an abundance of raw data, few organizations have figured out how to parse and analyze all that information to reveal the best opportunities for growth. Even fewer have attempted to structure and manage themselves to match the texture of the markets in which they play. But a fine-grained understanding of company performance and markets is critical, especially during an economic downturn, which calls for a nuanced approach to cutting costs and making long-term investments. Baghai, Smit, and Viguerie urge firms to target narrower market slices and to measure sources of growth - market momentum, mergers and acquisitions, and market share gains - in a more detailed way. When they reviewed growth patterns of global firms from 1999 to 2006, they found that companies can get a much more accurate picture of growth prospects by digging deeply into micromarkets (typically ranging from $50 million to $200 million in value) than by looking at the division-level performance numbers commonly used for measuring, organizing, and managing. The authors examine several companies - including Amazon and Ping An - that have benefitted from greater granularity. For instance, one large European manufacturer of personal-care products went beyond an aggregated view of performance and discovered that some of its higher-growth segments were lurking in the unit with the lowest overall growth rate. Another company, an integrated telecommunications service provider, retooled its marketing mix - making fewer roughly calculated media trade-offs (television versus direct mail versus radio) and instead selecting the right media within narrowly defined regions for specific lines of business. As a result, it boosted sales between 10% and 15% in several regions and increased average lifetime customer value by 15%.

Pursuing a merger or acquisition is inherently difficult. Things get even harder when executives are blind to their own faulty assumptions, say Lovallo--a professor at the University of Western Australia Business School and a senior adviser to McKinsey--and three of his McKinsey colleagues. The authors identify biases that can surface at each step of the M&A process and provide practical tips for rising above them--an approach they call targeted debiasing. During the preliminary due-diligence stage, biases abound. To overcome the confirmation bias, aggressively seek evidence that challenges your initial hypothesis about a deal. The best medicine for overconfidence in identifying revenue and cost synergies is to learn from precedents at your firm and others. Avoiding underestimation of cultural differences between your company and the target requires understanding the differences in the ways people interact at each organization. Misjudging the time and resources you need is at the core of the planning fallacy, which you can elude by formally identifying best practices and continually revisiting them. Finally, dilute conflict of interest by soliciting dispassionate external expertise. The bidding phase is vulnerable to the winner's curse, a phenomenon common in auctions. To avoid paying too much for a target, actively generate alternatives to the deal under consideration and develop a set of bidding cutoff rules. After offering an initial bid, deal makers are susceptible to anchoring, whereby they remain attached to their original price estimate, and to the sunk cost fallacy that they've invested too much to stop now. The secret to overcoming both: Use your newly available access to the target's books to better assess the investment case--and change your tune accordingly.

The likelihood that an industry leader will lose its top position within five years has doubled since 1972, say McKinsey consultants S. Patrick Viguerie and Caroline Thompson.

What makes for a good strategy in highly uncertain business environments? How do executives choose a clear strategic direction when no amount of sophisticated analysis will allow them to predict the future? The authors, consultants at McKinsey & Co., outline a new approach for dealing with the high levels of uncertainty that regularly confront managers today. This article explains how to make crucial distinctions among the levels of uncertainty managers face, and then how to choose a strategic posture appropriate for that level. This strategy framework helps managers to tailor a portfolio of actions--comprising big bets, options, and no-regrets moves--to the uncertainty at hand. An important and timely addition to the strategy arsenal, this article offers a discipline for thinking rigorously and systematically about uncertainty.