Last week, Scotland lost to Italy in Rome, a game they were expected to win.

This week, they beat England in the Six Nations Championship.

Same players. Same tournament. Very different outcome.

Watching Scotland beat England at Murrayfield, I found myself thinking, as is often the case, there is a good business lesson in this.

Because what changed wasn’t raw capability.

It was control.

The volatility of talent

Scotland has exceptional players.

So do most businesses I work with.

Smart people. Good intentions. Strong products (or at least parity with the competition).

And yet performance fluctuates.

Why?

Because talent amplifies the system it sits inside.

If the system lacks clarity about the market, the competition, and the plan, performance becomes inconsistent. You oscillate between flashes of brilliance and frustrating under-delivery.

Rome looked loose. Murrayfield looked structured.

That’s not emotional. That’s strategic.

Understanding the game you’re actually playing

England is a territorial, pressure-heavy side.

Scotland didn’t try to out-muscle them. They managed the territory better. They were more disciplined. They reduced unforced errors.

In other words, they played the game that needed to be played and did so beautifully.

In business, I often see something similar to Rome.

Teams talk about “growth” without fully understanding:

• Where the category is genuinely moving.
• Where competitors are structurally advantaged.
• Where the real opportunity gap exists.

You can’t win a game you haven’t defined properly.

Understanding the market isn’t a slide in a deck. It’s the foundation of every decision that follows.

The power of clear roles

In Rome, it felt frantic. Granted, the horrendous weather wouldn’t have made it easy, but both teams had to endure it.

At Murrayfield, roles were clear. Responsibilities were tight. Decision-making was cleaner.

There was less hero ball and fewer wild passes in tricky conditions.

Structure doesn’t constrain performance; it enables it.

The same applies in organisations:

• The right people in the right roles.
• Clear strategic priorities.
• Defined decision rights.
• A plan everyone understands.

Without that, effort increases, but impact doesn’t.

And increased effort without increased impact is expensive.

Strategy is clarity plus adaptability

What I found most interesting wasn’t that Scotland changed everything.

They didn’t.

They adjusted.

Sure, some will say England didn’t bring their A game. But Scotland had better discipline. Smarter game management. Fewer high-risk plays in the wrong areas.

They didn’t abandon identity. They refined execution.

That’s what a good strategy looks like.

Not rigidity. Not chaos.

Clarity, held firmly, with flexibility at the edges.

Businesses that cling too tightly to plans break when reality shifts. Businesses with no plan drift.

The commercial advantage sits in the middle.

The commercial lens

Ultimately, sport is binary: you win, or you don’t. Sometimes, granted, you may get a draw, which can sometimes feel like a win, especially when going up against a better team.

Business is more nuanced, but performance still tells the truth.

Revenue. Margin. Market share. Pricing power.

Those are the scoreboards.

Understanding your market. Knowing your competition. Putting the best people in the right roles. Creating a clear direction. Building a plan. Adapting without losing coherence.

That’s not theory.

It’s performance management.

Rome is what happens when execution and clarity slip. Murrayfield is what happens when they tighten.

The gap between the two isn’t talent.

It’s discipline.

And beating someone you weren’t expected to beat always feels great.