Library
Jobs to be Done: Theory to Practice · 4 of 11
Jobs to be Done: Theory to Practice
Entrepreneurship CRITICAL

The Growth Strategy Matrix

Jobs to be Done: Theory to Practice Anthony W. Ulwick
growth-strategy differentiated dominant disruptive discrete sustaining

Key Principle

The Growth Strategy Matrix classifies market offerings along two axes -- performance (better or worse at getting the job done) and cost (more or less expensive) -- producing five distinct growth strategies: differentiated, dominant, disruptive, discrete, and sustaining. The genuine insight is not the taxonomy itself but the mismatch principle: "In an overserved segment, a differentiated strategy would likely fail, as no customer is seeking a more expensive product or service that will get the job done better. Conversely, in an underserved segment, a disruptive strategy would likely fail." (Chapter 3). Strategy selection is constrained by the segment's satisfaction state, and violations are predictably fatal. Without Outcome-Based Segmentation to reveal which segments are underserved vs. overserved, strategy selection is a coin flip.

Why This Matters

Most companies default to intuition-driven strategy -- typically sustaining (incremental improvement) or undifferentiated disruption. This produces "stuck in the middle" products that are only slightly better or slightly cheaper, failing to attract any new customers. Sustaining strategies fail for new entrants because customers rarely switch for less than 20% improvement. The matrix eliminates guesswork by prescribing the correct strategy based on quantitative segment data.

The matrix also reveals the differentiated-to-dominant trajectory: a differentiated entry captures disproportionate profit share from underserved high-end customers, funding successive products that move down-market toward dominant positioning. Apple iPhone followed this arc -- each generation lowered older model prices while the newest captured premium. Incumbents resist this path because dominant-strategy products cannibalize their own margins and demand new platform investment.

Good Examples

  • Differentiated -- Nest thermostat: Targeted underserved customers willing to pay a premium. Captured more than 25% profit share on less than 10% market share at 7x the competitor price ($250 vs. $35). The segment was willing to pay because existing thermostats left high-importance outcomes unmet. (Chapter 3)

  • Dominant -- Google Search, UberX, Netflix streaming: These achieved 20% or more improvement in performance AND 20% or more reduction in cost, eliminating the tradeoff entirely. Kroll Ontrack followed the same pattern in e-discovery, growing from $11M to $200M in approximately 6 years by being both better and cheaper than incumbent paper-discovery companies. (Chapters 3, 5)

  • Disruptive -- Google Docs vs. Microsoft Office, Dollar Shave Club: Stripped features that overserved customers did not value. For nonconsumers, any solution beats non-consumption. These strategies succeed only when the target segment is genuinely overserved. (Chapter 3)

  • Discrete -- Airport concessions, payday lending: Captive audiences with limited alternatives due to physical, legal, or emotional constraints. The strategy works because customers have few options, but carries significant reputational risk when perceived as exploitative -- as Mylan learned with the EpiPen price controversy. (Chapter 3)

Counterpoints

  • Differentiated strategy applied to overserved segments: No customer in an overserved segment is seeking a more expensive product that gets the job done better -- they already get the job done well enough. This is the classic "better mousetrap" failure where R&D solves problems customers do not have. (Chapter 3)

  • Disruptive strategy applied to underserved segments: Offering a cheaper-but-worse product to customers with unmet outcomes ignores the needs driving their dissatisfaction. The cheaper product fails to address the outcomes they care about most. (Chapter 3)

  • Sustaining strategy for new entrants: Less than 5% improvement is insufficient to trigger switching behavior. Sustaining is useful only for incumbents defending existing position; new entrants pursuing it are predictably unsuccessful. (Chapter 3)

Key Quotes

"In an overserved segment, a differentiated strategy would likely fail, as no customer is seeking a more expensive product or service that will get the job done better. Conversely, in an underserved segment, a disruptive strategy would likely fail." -- Ulwick, Chapter 3

"We didn't necessarily have to go change our pricing or products or redesign or reformulate the products. The biggest impact was changing the messaging so people understood, 'Oh that's what that product can help me get done.'" -- Scott Druker (Arm & Hammer), Chapter 5

"If these big, well-established companies had understood the outcomes that customers really valued, they could have dominated this business." -- Ben Allen (Kroll Ontrack), Chapter 5

"The unmet needs of today represent the winning value propositions of the future." -- Ulwick, Chapter 4

Rules of Thumb

  • Always segment before selecting strategy. Averaging satisfaction scores across the whole market masks the extremes that define which strategy fits.
  • Underserved segment -> differentiated or dominant strategy. Overserved segment -> disruptive strategy. Restricted segment -> discrete strategy. Never invert these.
  • Differentiated is the most common entry point for new products; plan for the differentiated-to-dominant trajectory from day one.
  • If a sustaining strategy is your only option, you are probably an incumbent -- and if you are not, reconsider the market.
  • Discrete strategies (captive audiences) carry reputational risk. The Mylan EpiPen backlash illustrates how exploiting restricted segments can destroy brand equity.
  • Dominant strategies are rare because they require simultaneous breakthroughs in performance and cost. When achievable, they are category-defining.
  • A correct strategy with the wrong messaging still fails. Coloplast's products already addressed unmet outcomes but grew double digits only after the value proposition shifted from "faster healing" to "complication prevention." (Chapter 4)

Related References