Mindware: 33 Mental Models for The Modern Agribusiness Leader

“Developing the habit of mastering the multiple models which underlie reality is the best thing you can do.” 

The Red Queen Effect is a concept from evolutionary biology that explains how species must constantly adapt and evolve— not just for progress, but to simply maintain their current position in a changing environment.

The term comes from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, where the Red Queen tells Alice, “It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.” In nature, this means organisms must continually evolve to survive against ever-evolving competitors, predators, and parasites.

The Red Queen Effect is often used to describe competitive dynamics— especially in fast-moving industries. Companies must continually innovate just to retain their market position because competitors, technology, and customer expectations are always advancing.

Example: An ag retail company introduces a premium crop scouting service that uses drones, imagery, and digital reporting tools to deliver faster, more accurate insights to farmers. It quickly becomes a differentiator— farmers see value, yields improve, and the retailer gains market share and manages margin erosion.

But within two seasons, competitors begin offering similar services. And some take it a step further and partner with companies like Solinftec and bundle scouting, product and the application service to deliver an entirely new experience to the farmer.

Suddenly, what was once a competitive edge is now expected, and in some cases, has been surpassed.

To maintain relevance, the original retailer must continue evolving— integrating new tools and system, layering in See & Spray prescriptions, and hiring entirely new teams to compete and differentiate.

Ongoing innovation isn’t about getting ahead one time— it’s about having the mindset, or the company culture, to continually find ways to do so.

Roger Martin’s Playing to Win framework defines strategy as a set of integrated choices that position a business to win. It revolves around five core questions:

1. What is our winning aspiration? Defines the end goal— what success looks like.

2. Where will we play? Identifies the specific markets, customers, and segments to focus on.

3. How will we win? Articulates the unique value proposition and competitive advantage.

4. What capabilities must be in place? Specifies the activities, competencies, and assets required to execute.

5. What management systems are required? Ensures alignment of processes, incentives, KPIs, and organizational structures.

The strength of the framework is in forcing clarity and alignment between ambition, focus, differentiation, execution, and measurement.

Agribusinesses often drift into reactive mode— serving everyone with everything. The Playing to Win framework challenges this by demanding focused choices:

An independent retailer might define its aspiration as becoming the most trusted advisor to progressive row crop farmers in the Midwest.

- Its “where to play” choice could focus on 1,000–5,000 acre farms in a five-county region growing corn and soybeans.

- Its “how to win” could be through proprietary agronomic programs and integrated service offerings— not price or scale.

- The capabilities might include top-tier agronomists, a detailed training approach for their team, a new approach to service, and a uniquely thought out supply chain.

- Management systems would align incentive structures, data tracking, and service models to reinforce the strategy.

This clarity helps avoid generic strategies like "grow market share" or "become more innovative" without knowing who you're serving, how you're different, and what you need to be excellent at.

Strategy is not a vision or a plan— it's about making hard, integrated choices that define where to focus and how to win.

In agriculture, with rising complexity and margin pressure, companies that clearly articulate their strategic choices and align their teams and systems around them, will be far more likely to create loyal customers and enduring value.

Adapted from Maslow’s hierarchy, this framework structures what a grower needs to succeed based on foundational needs up to more “elevated” outcomes.

The Hierarchy of Agronomic Needs is a framework that helps illustrate how farmers prioritize different crop inputs based on necessity, particularly through avrying economic conditions.

At the base of the pyramid are Foundational and Functional products— things like land, seed, fertilizer, and basic crop protection. These are used every year regardless of price or weather outlook. These are essential.

Then we move to Functional Needs— herbicides, insecticides and macronutrients like N and P. These are not required to grow a crop, but the average farmer wants access to these tools and products every year.

Moving up the pyramid, we reach Optimization Options (like micronutrients or variable-rate tools), products that a farmer can go without, but are beneficial.

Finally we get to Elevated Outcomes— products like biostimulants, which tend to be used only when prices are strong, yield potential is high and farm income has been positive.

Farmers are more likely to cut back on products higher in the pyramid during tough years.

But with strong positioning, education, and integration into essential use cases, companies can move products down the pyramid— making them feel more like “must-haves” instead of “nice-to-haves.”

Input manufacturers, agtech companies and ag retailers should focus on actions that move their products down the pyramid— closer to default use and foundational or functional. That means deeply understanding where and why they work, tightly positioning inputs to specific agronomic problems, clearly communicating economic return, and tying usage to familiar systems or foundational practices. The closer a product gets to being seen as essential, the more resilient its demand becomes regardless of the weather, prices or overall commodity cycle.