RESPONSE TO PEERS 2
Response to Peers
Response to Meghan Kasulke
The article begins with a clear explanation of how Play to Win (PTW) concept applies to
business competition. To this effect, it lists reasons why organizations implement it, and how it
affords them a competitive edge using semi-radical innovation. However, there is no elaborate
explanation how companies utilize technology to gain an edge over their rivals. Therefore, there
is a need to indicate how they penetrate new markets using new ideas. For example, Starbucks
introduced new coffee tastes to remain number one in the coffee market.
On the other hand, the author defines Play Not to Lose (PNTL) correctly by showing how
businesses use incremental innovation to gain market advantage. Furthermore, it applies the
concept of strategic leadership when it mentions how companies combine resources and sound
decision-making strategies to succeed. This model matches the Contingency theory, which
dictates that a firm’s ideal leadership style depends on prevailing circumstances. In the end, the
author relates the two concepts to the place of work and gives reasons why one of them is the
most applicable.
Response to Chelsea Fullerton
In this article, the definition of PTW covers all the crucial components such as innovation
and competitiveness. Furthermore, the author outlines the types of change that auger well with
this strategy. Notably, there is a proper explanation of how companies use PTW to penetrate new
markets using new products and services. This notion brings out the concept of research and
development and its significance to the success of a business.
On the other hand, the explanation about PNTL is explicit since it includes the context in
which companies use it. Besides, there is the evident use of Contingency theory where managers
