Once America's most innovative consumer products company, Procter and Gamble (P&G) began selling soaps and candles in a small Cincinnati store in 1837 ( Procter and Gamble, 2008 ). After one hundred and seventy-one years, P&G has grown to over one hundred well-known brands in more than eighty countries (Markels 2006). Their products range from air fresheners to prescription drugs. However, as P&G moved into the twenty-first century, it announced that it would miss its first-quarter earnings forecasts [Lafley, 2003]. Profit margins were declining, and P&G was rapidly losing market share to Kimberly Clark and Johnson & Johnson. After the earnings misses, P&G's stock price fell from $59.18 to $26.50 between January 2000 and March 2000 (PG). Upset, the board pressured then-CEO Durk Jager to resign after a lackluster attempt to turn around P&G and replaced him with A.G. Lafley, an unproven CEO who analysts believed lacked the experience to give P&G a much-needed cleanup (Lafley, 2003 ). Before Lafley took over from Jager, P&G was stretched thin, unfortunately wasting resources and opportunities with an overly complicated corporate strategy. P&G was raising prices on its best-selling brands to cover lost sales and high production costs for new brands that were not successful [Lafley, 2003]. They had hired too many employees and were involved in numerous unprofitable investments. P&G hadn't had a hit product since launching EVER women's products in the 1980s, and each further product flop only stretched their resources further and further. The costs were high and morally low, with employees unafraid to express their lack of confidence in P&G's leadership and management. Subsidiaries blamed companies for their lost profits and vice versa [Lafley, 2003]. The strategies between P&G's brands clashed, and each was determined to safeguard its own interests. The prices of consumer products were too high while the company failed to satisfy customers. These factors distracted them from what originally brought them success: being an industry leader in innovation (Markels, 2006). Seeing the downward spiral that P&G was rapidly ascending, Lafley knew he had to act quickly. It was supposed to provide the direction needed for a turnaround. He began internally dismantling the company from the inside and then rebuilding it. He had a plan to change P&G and was quoted as saying, "We accepted the change and, instead of trying to resist it, we committed to leading it"..