Why You Need More Than One Strategy: The Case for Granularity

The Problem with the Monolith

For decades, strategy was treated like a once-a-year command document: a single plan created at the top, then pushed across the enterprise. That model made sense when markets moved slowly and operating environments were relatively stable. It makes far less sense now, when pricing changes weekly, supply chains are fragile, regulation differs by geography, and digital competitors can reset an industry in months.

The problem is not that corporate strategy is unnecessary. The problem is that a single, oversized strategy cannot answer every critical question with enough specificity. Research from BCG shows that companies in turbulent environments need more adaptive, scenario-based planning to stay competitive, while Harvard Business Review has repeatedly argued that planning must become a continuous management process rather than an annual ritual. In practice, the best organizations are moving away from the monolith and toward granular strategy: multiple linked strategies at the product, regional, customer, and functional levels.

That shift matters because the unit of competition has changed. A consumer goods company may face one set of economics in North America, another in Southeast Asia, and yet another in e-commerce marketplaces. A software company may win in one segment with self-serve onboarding and in another with enterprise sales. A healthcare provider may need different capacity, staffing, and compliance choices across service lines. One corporate deck cannot optimize all of those realities at once.

Why broad strategy breaks down

A broad strategy typically fails in three ways:

• It is too abstract to guide day-to-day tradeoffs.
• It hides variation across markets, products, and functions.
• It slows execution because every adjustment must be routed through a central process.

As MIT Sloan Management Review has noted, the pace of change increasingly rewards organizations that can make decisions closer to the market. That does not eliminate the need for a corporate north star. It means the north star must be translated into distinct strategic choices for each business unit.

The Shift to Granularity

Granular strategy replaces one oversized plan with a system of connected plans. The corporate level defines direction, boundaries, and capital priorities. Then each unit defines how to compete in its own context.

This is not fragmentation. It is orchestration.

A strong strategic system usually includes:

Bain’s research on strategy execution consistently shows that the gap between strategy and results often comes from weak translation into operating decisions. Granularity closes that gap by making each layer more explicit. Instead of asking, “What does the strategy say?” leaders can ask, “What does this unit need to do differently on Monday morning?”

Real-world examples of granular strategy

The strongest examples of granularity come from companies that compete in highly differentiated markets.

Amazon is not run as one undifferentiated business. Its marketplace, logistics network, cloud platform, advertising engine, and subscription ecosystem each have different economics, customer needs, and investment horizons. That kind of strategic separation allows leaders to optimize each business on its own terms while still benefiting from a common corporate infrastructure.

Unilever has long balanced global scale with local market adaptation. In categories like food, beauty, and home care, consumer preferences vary significantly by region, so local execution cannot simply mirror headquarters’ assumptions. The company’s multi-category, multi-market structure is a good example of why regional and product-level strategies matter.

Microsoft offers another useful case. Its enterprise software, cloud infrastructure, gaming, and AI businesses all require different competitive moves, even though they sit under one corporate umbrella. The company’s success has depended on making distinct bets inside a coherent portfolio, not on forcing all divisions into one generic strategy.

Even outside technology, the pattern holds. A hospital system cannot optimize labor, patient flow, and service mix with one simple corporate plan. A retailer cannot use the same playbook for flagship stores, digital commerce, and third-party marketplace sales. The more heterogeneous the business, the more valuable granularity becomes.

Why granular strategy improves performance

Granularity improves strategy because it increases precision in the places that matter most.

• Agility: Units can respond to local shifts without waiting for an enterprise-wide rewrite.
• Ownership: Leaders are accountable for decisions they helped design, which improves commitment and follow-through.
• Clarity: Specific goals and tradeoffs are easier to execute than broad ambition.
• Resource allocation: Capital and talent can be directed to the highest-return opportunities in each unit.
• Measurement: Performance can be tracked against the right benchmarks, not generic corporate averages.

HBR has shown that strategies often fail when they remain disconnected from operating metrics and frontline behavior. Granular planning reduces that disconnect. It also helps avoid a common corporate trap: treating every business like it faces the same competitive forces.

Research from Gartner on planning and decision-making has emphasized the need for adaptive, scenario-informed planning as volatility rises. That finding aligns with what many executives now experience firsthand. When inflation affects one category but not another, when regulation changes in one country but not another, or when demand shifts unevenly across channels, strategic specificity becomes a competitive advantage.

The discipline required for granularity

Granular strategy is not simply “more documents.” Without discipline, it turns into chaos. The goal is not to create dozens of disconnected plans. The goal is to create a governed strategy architecture.

That architecture should include:

• A clear corporate thesis that defines the company’s purpose, portfolio logic, and capital priorities.
• A standard planning cadence so all units update strategy on the same rhythm.
• Common assumptions about growth, margin, risk, and investment thresholds.
• Unit-level decision rights so local leaders know what they own and what must escalate.
• Shared metrics that connect unit outcomes to enterprise goals.

This is where a strong strategic planning process becomes essential. Granularity works when the company has a repeatable system for translating high-level intent into unit-specific choices, priorities, and resource allocations. Without that system, decentralization becomes inconsistency.

What leaders should change now

Executives should start by identifying where one-size-fits-all thinking is creating drag.

• Which business units face different customers, competitors, or regulations?
• Which functions need different capabilities to support different growth paths?
• Where are leaders making exceptions informally because the corporate plan is too generic?
• Which metrics are masking the real performance of individual businesses?

Once those gaps are visible, the next step is to redesign the planning model around strategic variation. That may mean separate market plans, distinct operating assumptions, or more frequent re-forecasting in volatile units. It may also mean changing how the leadership team reviews performance, so the conversation is about tradeoffs and choices rather than compliance with a single static plan.

The companies that will outperform over the next decade are not the ones with the longest strategy decks. They are the ones that can combine a clear corporate direction with precise unit-level choices, fast feedback loops, and accountable execution. In other words, they will treat strategy less like a monolith and more like a living system.

[Join the waitlist for Strategy OS ->](https://www.enablegrowth.com/#waitlist)