Skip to main content

The Blade Runner Strategy

Though I consider myself a planner and a strategist, I only reluctantly admit to engaging in debates about terms like "mission" and "vision." What are they? How are they defined? Which is which? Honestly, I long ago stopped caring.

Instead, I prefer the term "legacy" - i.e. a gift, a bequest, something handed down to future generations.
Think about it this way: imagine someone - an historian - sitting down in 50 years to write YOUR history and your organization's. What are you creating TODAY that's worth memorializing? What are you doing TODAY that might, possibly, endure for longer than a strategic planning cycle or two? What's your gift? More about that in a moment...

Last night I watched a 3 hour-long meta-movie - a movie about a movie - about the making of the movie Blade Runner, Ridley Scott's dystopic, claustrophobic vision of the not-so-distant future. Blade Runner was released in 1982, the same summer as E.T., early in the decade Ronald Reagan proclaimed as "Morning In America."

Moviegoers, tired of conflict and the downbeat economy, wanted shiny, happy people and shiny, upbeat plots. E.T. was all that, Blade Runner wasn't. And as Harrison Ford's first, post-"Raiders Of the Lost Ark" movie, audiences expected "Raiders II, the Sequel." It wasn't that either.
No, Blade Runner was textural and moody, a dark, atmospheric rumination on some thoughtful questions: Who are we? Where do we come from? What does it mean to be human?

I was struck by Director Ridley Scott's overpowering vision for the film and the Blade Runner world. Struck by how precisely he imagined Los Angeles in the not-so-distant future. Struck by an entire new generation of film directors talking about Blade Runner's impact on their lives, their thinking and careers.

And struck by how the "suits" (a pejorative term describing those who put up their capital to back the film) remain mystified by what's happened to "their" movie - happy to reap the returns but bewildered by a movie once relegated to "cult" status becoming a cultural juggernaut.
  Where's THAT in the focus group report?

You don't have to be a movie buff to understand the parallels: like Ridley Scott, effective strategists range widely and think deeply, offer compelling visions, and are intellectually curious enough to make new and unexpected connections. They see what everyone else sees and learn what nobody else knows.

They're mature enough to know that planning isn't about the right plans or last night's focus group results. It's about the right conversations. It's about changing mental models and aspirations. It's about persisting, striking out against the unknown, re-writing the rules and definitions of success as you go.

Conversations. Mental models. New rules. What MBA class covered those, I wonder?

They realize their organization counts on them more than it knows. They know not to waste an opportunity to grab people by the (metaphorical) throat and scream "Dammit! The work we do must MATTER! Time is too precious to waste on small dreams, on being just another me-too organization in a big me-too world, scrabbling in the muck for another tenth of an EBIDTA point!"


Pursue me-too mediocrity and you'll surely find it. Achievement is easy when you're comfortable being average. So argue. Cajole. Threaten. Plead. Dig deep. Peel away layers of corporate-speak. Seek passion, find essence. Never settle. And never, ever give up.

The world hungers for people with passion, people who live life with urgency and drive, who understand that there are few things worse than living a life soon forgotten.


Oh, and that legacy thing? There are only two things you CAN leave: a healthier community and a healthier organization. Everything else is just occasionally helpful commentary. 

Think about it. Will your vision be worth remembering 50 years from now? Will future students of health care leadership be driven by its power? Will lives be changed? If not...

"Kick the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight!" (U2)


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved