Welcome to the deep dive. This is where we take
complex ideas, unpack them, and really try to
distill the knowledge you need to stay ahead,
well -informed, and, well, often quite surprised.
Today we're grappling with a really fundamental
question. It's one that echoes everywhere, boardrooms,
classrooms, and absolutely... across the demanding
world of healthcare. How does an organization
or maybe a team, perhaps even your own career,
move beyond just being good? How do you get to
something truly consistently exceptional? It's
a leap many aim for, right, but actually very
few make it. So our mission for this deep dive
is to unlock a framework, a really rigorous one,
painstakingly pulled together from looking at
companies that actually made this exact jump.
We won't just describe it. We want to unpack
what it really means for you, our dedicated medical
audience. How can these These principles maybe
transform a busy hospital department or say a
groundbreaking research project. And to help
us navigate this fascinating terrain, I'm genuinely
thrilled to be joined by Professor Mo Imam. Your
ability to synthesize these complex ideas and
connect them to real world impact, especially
a medical context is, well, it's fantastic. Welcome.
It's a real pleasure to be here. And yes, that
question, how to get from good to great. It's
a powerful one. And from the inside, it often
feels like this constant, maybe elusive struggle.
We should probably start with an insight that
might feel a bit, well, counterintuitive at first,
maybe even a little blunt. Good is often the
enemy of great. Right. Good gets in the way of
great. Exactly. Think about it. So many places,
large corporations, small clinics, even individual
practitioners, they tend to settle for being
good. And the reason, well, it's pretty simple,
really. Being good is comfortable. It's safe.
It's safe, yes. It doesn't demand those often
radical, sometimes uncomfortable changes or the
fierce unwavering discipline you need to push
further to achieve something genuinely exceptional
and crucially sustained. So this comfort, this
sort of gravitational pull towards just being
good enough, it becomes the very barrier. It
stops the leap to enduring greatness. Now, Our
understanding of this, it comes from a pretty
comprehensive five -year research effort, meticulously
designed really to crack the code of this good
-to -create jump. The methodology was incredibly
rigorous. We started by finding a select group
of companies, companies that had demonstrably
made that leap from just good results to truly
great results. And this is key, they sustained
those great results for at least 15 years. 15
years is a long time to sustain that level of
performance. It really is. And to make sure our
findings were truly distinct, We then rigorously
compared these good -to -great companies to a
carefully selected control group. These were
comparison companies that either failed to make
the leap, or maybe they made it for a short time
but couldn't sustain it. The whole aim was to
uncover the precise, distinguishing factors.
What exactly separated those who achieved lasting
greatness from those who just stayed good or
eventually faltered? And their results, frankly,
they were quite striking. The good -to -great
companies, on average, achieved cumulative stock
returns 6 .9 times the general market in the
15 years after their transition point. 6 .9 times?
That's huge. It is. Just to give you some perspective,
think about GE, General Electric, often held
up as one of the best -led companies of the late
20th century. Absolutely. Well, GE outperformed
the market by 2 .8 times over a similar 15 -year
period. OK, so 6 .9 versus 2 .8, that really
puts it in context. It does. We're talking about
a significant, empirically verifiable, almost
staggering leap in performance, and one that
wasn't just a flash in the pan. What I find so
compelling about this, actually, beyond those
undeniable numbers, is just how universal the
findings seem to be. It's not just tech, is it?
or manufacturing. Not at all. These core principles,
you called it the fundamental physics of going
from good to great, they seem to apply everywhere.
Whether you're running a school, a government
agency, or as we're really focusing on today,
navigating the incredibly intricate, vital world
of healthcare. Yes. Be it a major hospital, a
clinical department, maybe even a cutting edge
research lab. These insights hold true. That's
exactly right. The mechanisms aren't tied to
specific industries. They're rooted in deep -seated
human behavior, organizational design. It's fundamental.
And that actually leads to another surprising
aspect of what we found, the great companies
we identified. They weren't necessarily the ones
constantly grabbing headlines or basking in public
adoration. All right, not the usual suspects.
Not always, no. In fact, they were often, shall
we say, rather doubtier groups, companies you
might not have immediately thought of as star
performers, like Walgreens, for instance, or
Fannie Mae. Consider this. In the period from
1975 to 2000, a single pound invested in Walgreens
actually outperformed a pound invested in the
tech superstar Intel. Really? Walgreens beat
Intel. By nearly two times. It outperformed General
Electric by almost five times. And the general
stock market by over 15 times. Wow. That's incredible.
It really highlights that greatness isn't just
reserved for the flashy high -growth sectors
or those getting all the media buzz. It is, in
fact, possible to turn good into great in the
most unlikely, seemingly ordinary situations.
Mm. Provided, of course, these distinct principles
are applied. That's truly fascinating. OK, so
let's dive into these principles, then. Let's
get stuck in. You start with something quite
fundamental, leadership. But when we talk about
the kind of leadership that really drives an
organization from good to great. Your research
uncovered a profile that was, well, frankly surprising,
maybe even a little shocking, considering how
we often define great leaders today. What did
you discover about these exceptional individuals?
It was, without a doubt, one of the most provocative
findings. We absolutely expected to find these
charismatic, larger -than -life figures. You
know the type. The celebrity CEO. Exactly. The
ones who dominate headlines command attention.
What we discovered instead were what we termed
level five leaders. These are individuals who
embody a really powerful paradox. They blend
extreme personal humility with intense professional
will. Humility and will, interesting combination.
Very much so. They're often self -effacing, quiet,
reserved, sometimes even shy. Yet underneath
that, they possess this almost fierce, unshakable
resolve. and an unwavering ambition, crucially,
for the organization's success, rather than for
their own personal glory. Take Darwin Smith.
He became CEO of Kimberly Clark, a very mild
-mannered, quiet, in -house lawyer. Apparently,
he wasn't even sure the board had made the right
choice picking him. Ah, okay. But he stayed CEO
for 20 years. And in that time, he orchestrated
this stunning transformation, turned Kimberly
-Clark into the world's leading paper -based
consumer products company. Their cumulative stock
returns 4 .1 times the general market, handily
beating rivals like Proctor and Gamble, even
outperforming huge names like Coca -Cola and
GE. And what was his big move? His most gutsy
decision, probably, was selling off the company's
traditional core business, its coated paper mills,
a huge move to focus entirely on consumer products
like Huggies. Wow. That must have caused ripples.
Oh, it was met with media derision, stock downgrades.
The lot. But Smith never wavered. His drive was
entirely for Kimberly Clark. Personal ego. Just
wasn't there. Apparently in retirement, he simply
reflected, I never stopped trying to become qualified
for the job. That says a lot. Humility right
there. Indeed. Another great example, Coleman
Mockler at Gillette. Again, a quiet, reserved
man. Very courteous, almost patrician. Yet he
fiercely battled no fewer than three hostile
takeover bids to preserve Gillette's future greatness.
Three bids. Yes. And these bids would have meant
significant personal financial gain for him and
other shareholders in the short term. But Machler
refused to capitulate. He chose to fight for
the company's long -term viability, its excellence.
His dedication was profound, this drive to make
anything he touched the best it could possibly
be. Very sadly, he died of a massive heart attack
just minutes after seeing a Forbes cover story
celebrating his 16 years of struggle. A real
testament to his quiet intensity. His ambition
was purely for Gillette. That's quite a story.
And one more. David Maxwell at Fannie Mae took
over in 81. The company was hemorrhaging a million
dollars every single business day. A million
a day. Wow. Over nine years, he transformed Fannie
Mae, built a high performance culture, rivaling
the best on Wall Street. He retired at his peak,
believing the company would be ill served if
he stayed too long, handed the reins to a highly
capable successor. But what really showed his
level five leadership. His $20 million retirement
package became controversial in Congress. I can
imagine. Maxwell voluntarily gave up $5 .5 million
of it. Why? Because he felt the controversy could
jeopardize the company's future. His ambition,
again, purely for fan to me. It's such a striking
contrast, isn't it? To the narrative we so often
hear about leadership. I mean, many of the comparison
companies in your study had leaders who were
incredibly charismatic, often undeniably egocentric,
focus much more on their personal brand, their
glory. That's right. I remember reading about
Stanley Galt at Rubbermaid, famously quoted saying,
yes, but I'm a sincere tyrant. Or Al Dunlap at
Scott Paper. Chainsaw, Al. Exactly. He got 100
million for just 603 days work, boasting about
his Rambo in pinstripes nickname after slashing
jobs in R &D. Yes. And Lee Iacocca at Kreisler,
a rock star, basically, starring in commercials,
even thinking about running for president. Yet
these larger than life figures often left behind,
well, weak succession planning or performance
that just wasn't sustainable once they left.
It almost feels backwards that the quieter, humble
leaders built lasting greatness. It does, doesn't
it? And a key distinguishing trait of level five
leaders is precisely that, their ambition for
the company. Unlike many comparison leaders who
seem to have this biggest dog syndrome, wanting
to be the dominant figure, creating the organization
in their image, level five leaders consciously,
systematically set up their successors for success.
Not failure. This wasn't about building a personal
empire. It was about ensuring the enduring greatness
of the institution itself long after they'd gone.
They were almost fanatical about seeing the organization
flourish. And it's really crucial to understand
that this level five finding, it was empirical.
It wasn't some ideology we went looking for.
Just what the data showed. Exactly. It was consistently
present in all the good and great companies at
their transition point. And it cuts squarely
against that conventional wisdom that you need
these big charismatic personalities for transformation.
It points to something deeper, this deep -seated
resolve, this institutional ambition that put
the collective way above the individual. They
were essentially ordinary people quietly producing
extraordinary sustained results because they
put the enterprise first. So let's translate
this, this profound insight into the medical
world. What might this unique blend of personal
humility and professional will actually look
like in practice, say, for a chief of surgery
or a head of research or a clinic director? I
mean, I can imagine a chief of surgery, for instance,
has to project authority, confidence in really
critical moments. How do you square that with
genuine humility? That's a really incisive question
because you're right. The perception of leadership
in health care often leans towards that confident,
decisive figure. almost needs to, perhaps. But
for a medical professional, level five leadership
means focusing relentlessly on exceptional patient
outcomes, on pioneering research breakthroughs,
on the institutional excellence of the hospital
department, putting that above any personal acclaim
or, you know, hierarchical power struggles. Okay.
The Level 5 doctor, for instance, might dedicate
themselves to establishing really robust evidence
-based protocols, things that truly lift the
standard of care for the entire department, benefiting
future patients. Even if it means less personal
glory, less time in the limelight, they might
prioritize teaching, mentoring the next generation
of clinicians or researchers, ensuring their
successors aren't just competent but exceptional,
capable of pushing boundaries further than they
themselves could. Building that future capacity.
Exactly. It means taking responsibility for mistakes
without blame, giving credit freely, generously
to the team, understanding that true achievement
is collective. It's about building a legacy of
excellence for the institution, for the patients,
not building a monument to yourself. The authority
comes from competence, from genuine care for
the mission, not from ego. That is a powerful
distinction, and it leads us perfectly, actually,
into the second principle. First who, then what?
This really challenges a deeply ingrained assumption,
doesn't it? Do great leaders start by charting
a grand new vision, or do they focus on something
else entirely first? Our research reviewed they
operated with a, well, a counterintuitive sequence,
one that really flips conventional wisdom on
its head. They first focused on getting the right
people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus,
and the right people in the right seats. And
then they figured out where to drive it. So people
first, direction second. Precisely. This means
your people are not your most important asset.
The right people are. And this principle is fundamental
because the most brilliant strategy in the world
is, well, useless if you don't have the intrinsically
motivated, disciplined, passionate individuals
to actually execute it. Think of David Maxwell
at Fannie Mae again. Remember, losing a million
dollars a day, immense pressure to act immediately.
His very first act, not launching a new strategy,
not implementing a new financial plan. Instead,
he systematically interviewed all the officers,
made it absolutely clear how demanding the challenge
would be, and gave those not aligned with his
vision the chance to leave. No prejudice. He
focused on building that high -caliber, committed
team before setting a new direction. That takes
nerve when you're bleeding cash like that. It
does. And this approach is fundamentally about
being rigorous, not ruthless. Okay, explain that
difference. Rigorous versus ruthless. Ruthless
implies cutting indiscriminately, or firing,
without really thoughtful consideration, often
driven by short -term panic. Rigorous means consistently
applying exacting standards, at all times, at
all levels, particularly in upper management.
It's about ensuring your best people can focus
fully on their highest value work, rather than
being burdened, compensating for shortcomings
of underperformers. or carrying dead weight.
Making space for the best to perform. Exactly.
Consider Wells Fargo's acquisition of Crocker
Bank back in 1986. They took the seemingly drastic
step of terminating 1 ,600 Crocker managers on
day one. And surprisingly, even some of their
own managers, if the Crocker manager was judged
better qualified. Wow, that's bold. It wasn't
about being cruel. It was about rapid clarity,
preserving a high -performance culture. One executive
explained, we were not going to subject our culture
to a death by a thousand cuts. They acted quickly
so people could move on, find roles where they
could flourish, rather than languishing in uncertainty
which just drains morale. Another powerful illustration,
New Core, the steel company. They built their
entire system on a premise. You can teach farmers
how to make steel. Okay. But you can't teach
a farmer's work ethic to people who don't have
it. Oh, I see. Focus on the inherent drive. Right.
So they located their plants in rural areas,
created an environment where hard -working people
thrived, their compensation system, heavily tied
to team productivity. Over half of workers' pay
depended on their team's output. They literally
hired five, worked them like ten, and paid them
like eight. Intense. And lazy workers. quite
directly, they were thrown right off the bus.
Sometimes even physically chased out by teammates
because they were hitting the collective bonus.
You know, one of the most surprising findings
from the study, at least it was for me, was about
executive compensation. It seems really counterintuitive
that there wasn't a strong systematic link between
specific pay structures and making that leap
from good to great. For many, incentives are
the be all and end all, right? for driving performance.
Are you suggesting that traditional bonuses,
for instance, have no role or is it just not
the primary driver? That's an excellent question.
And it really did challenge our preconceived
notions. We spent weeks digging into compensation
data, looking for correlations, stock options,
bonuses, high salaries, linking them to great
performance. And we found no systematic differences.
In fact, the good -to -great executives actually
received slightly less total cash compensation
10 years after the transition than their counterparts
at the still mediocre comparison companies. Less.
Okay, that is surprising. Why? Well, the explanation,
we concluded, lies right back in that first two
principle. It's not how you compensate your executives,
it's which executives you have to compensate
in the first place. Ah, it's about the person,
not the package. Precisely. If you have the right
people on the bus, those level five leaders...
Those individuals with that intrinsic motivation,
they aren't primarily driven by what they'll
get for it. They will do everything in their
power to build a great company. Not because of
the next bonus, but because they simply cannot
imagine settling for anything less. It's their
internal moral code, their professional will.
It requires building excellence for its own sake.
So the motivation is internal? Largely, yes.
Now, compensation needs to be rational, fair,
of course, but it's about who you compensate
attracting and retaining those intrinsically
driven people, not the elaborate structure of
the compensation itself, the right people. They
don't need to be tightly managed, nor do they
need complicated compensation schemes to be motivated.
They are self -motivated by that desire to build
something great. And this leads to a crucial
practical discipline that just naturally flows
from first two. Put your best people on your
biggest opportunities, not your biggest problems.
Opportunities, not problems. Okay. Managing problems
can, at best, make you good. It keeps you afloat,
keeps things ticking over, but it doesn't create
breakthroughs. Building on opportunities, however,
that's the only way to become truly great. Philip
Morris, for example, put his best talent on the
international expansion for Marlboro, rather
than trying to endlessly fix its declining domestic
market share. Focus on the growth area. Yes.
Similarly, Kimberly Clark's Dick Apert shifted
his top talent away from the failing paper business
towards the emerging, high -potential consumer
business. The right people want to be part of
building something great, and they're willing
to move resources, move talent to where the greatest
impact and growth can actually be made. So if
we bring this back to healthcare again, you're
often dealing with highly specialized talent,
almost irreplaceable sometimes, and intense immediate
patient pressures. How does a hospital leader
realistically implement this right people on
the busses idea without causing chaos? What are
the actual levers they have to identify the right
people for challenging clinical roles or groundbreaking
research initiatives beyond just looking at an
impressive CV? That's a critical practical challenge
in healthcare, absolutely. A hospital leader
needs to adopt that rigor not ruthless approach
to talent. Which means looking beyond just technical
skill or years of experience, you evaluate people
not just on their current performance, but on
their intrinsic motivation, their capacity for
continuous growth, their deep alignment with
the institution's core purpose. So character
and potential, not just qualifications. Exactly.
You ask yourself things like, if I were hiring
this person today, knowing what I know now, would
I enthusiastically rehire them? Or perhaps more
tellingly, if this person left for another opportunity,
would I be secretly relieved? Or would I be truly
disappointed, worried about the void they'd leave?
Those are tough questions. They cut to the heart
of whether someone is truly the right person.
For clinical roles, it might mean looking for
individuals who demonstrate profound empathy,
a relentless commitment to patient well -being,
a collaborative spirit that genuinely lists the
whole team, not just their own practice. For
research, it means identifying those with that
insatiable curiosity, exceptional intellectual
rigor, and the sheer tenacity to pursue difficult
questions even when facing repeated setbacks
or failed experiments. That resilience! Absolutely.
And once you have these right people, the next
crucial step is recognizing you don't just assign
them to the most immediate crises, the biggest
fires. Instead, you strategically deploy your
brightest minds, your most dedicated professionals,
to the areas with the greatest potential for
breakthrough. Back to opportunities over problems.
Yes. Whether that's developing a new, more effective
surgical technique, exploring novel treatment
modalities, or pursuing a high -impact research
hypothesis that could fundamentally change patient
care, it's about being proactive in building
greatness, rather than just reactive and maintaining
goodness. That's a powerful shift in perspective.
Moving on, the third principle gets into a really
profound psychological duality. One essential
for greatness. Confront the brutal facts, yet
never lose faith. What is this duality, and why
is it so crucial? It almost sounds contradictory.
It does, doesn't it? And that's precisely the
paradox. This principle is encapsulated in what
we call the Stockdale paradox. It states that
you must maintain unwavering faith, faith that
you can and will prevail in the end, regardless
of the difficulties. And D, at the same time,
have the discipline to confront the most brutal
facts of your current reality, whatever they
might be. holding those two together, faith and
harsh reality. Exactly. Holding two seemingly
opposing forces in tension. The name comes from
Admiral Jim Stockdale. He was the highest ranking
U .S. military officer held captive in the Hanoi
Hilton during the Vietnam War. Ah, yes, the POW.
He endured years of brutal torture, 1965 to 1973.
No prisoners' rights, no certainty of release,
no clear end in sight. Just grim reality. When
asked Years later, who didn't make it out of
the POW camps, Stockdale famously replied, oh,
that's easy, the optimists. The optimists didn't
make it? That seems odd. He explained the optimists
were the ones who kept saying, we're going to
be out by Christmas. Then Christmas would come
and go. OK, we'll be out by Easter. Easter would
come and go. And eventually, they died of broken
hearts. Their spirits shattered by repeated disappointment.
Because their hope wasn't grounded in reality.
Precisely. Stockdale, by contrast, faced the
grim reality of his situation head on. never
deluded himself about how severe it was or how
long it might last. Yet, and this is the paradox,
he never lost faith in his ultimate triumph,
in turning the experience into a defining event
of his life. This duality, acknowledging reality
without losing hope, was absolutely critical
to his survival and his eventual triumph. That's
a powerful lesson. It contrasts sharply with
companies that failed to confront reality. Take
A &P, the old grocery chain. Despite clear market
changes, the rise of super stores, A &P just
stuck its head in the sand. They even opened
experimental stores, the Golden Key, to learn
what customers wanted. Customers loved them.
So they got the answer. Yes. But astonishingly,
A &P closed them because, and I quote, they didn't
like the answers. You're kidding. No. They then
lurched from one fad to another. Radical price
cutting, but without addressing the fundamental
shift in customer needs, led straight to their
decline. Meanwhile, Kroger, a competitor, methodically
confronted the brutal truth about the changing
market, systematically converted its entire system
to the Superstore model, achieved sustained greatness,
another example, Addressograph, under a charismatic
CEO, Roy Ash, pursued this ambitious office automation
plan, but Ash refused to acknowledge mounting
evidence that his plan was failing. kept milking
cash from profitable areas to fund this doomed
venture. Willful blindness. Essentially, yes.
The truth just went unheard until it was far
too late. Many key people simply bailed out,
disheartened by the delusion. Okay, let's unpack
this for our medical listeners. Healthcare. Inherent
complexities. Ethical dilemmas, immense pressures.
It can often be hard to confront uncomfortable
truths, whether it's about patient outcomes,
resource allocation, treatment effectiveness,
maybe even internal team dynamics. How do you,
as a leader in this environment, actually cultivate
a climate where the truth is not just heard but
actively sought out, even when it's deeply uncomfortable?
This is absolutely vital, because the moment
a leader becomes the primary reality, people
worry about. Meaning they're afraid to bring
bad news. Exactly. Afraid to deliver bad news,
challenge assumptions, worried more about the
leader's reaction than reality itself. That's
a recipe for mediocrity. Or worse, for crisis.
We identified several methods for cultivating
a climate where the truth is heard. First, leadership
with questions, not answers. Great leaders, like
Alan Wurzel of Circuit City, they resisted the
urge to walk in with all the solutions ready.
Instead, they started by asking, why? Why? Why?
Constantly pushing, probing with questions to
get a clear picture of reality and its implications.
Like a Socratic approach. Very much so. It encourages
deep understanding and ownership from the team,
rather than just passive compliance. Second,
engage in dialogue and debate, not coercion.
Good to great teams spent significant time in
robust debates. The executives at Philip Morris,
for example, were renowned for arguing about
everything, but it was always in search of the
best answer for the common good, not about personal
agendas or turf wars. What the conflict. Exactly.
And when a decision was finally made after that
rigorous debate, everyone stood behind it because
they felt their voice had been heard in the pursuit
of truth. Third, conduct autopsies without blame.
When mistakes happen, like Philip Morris's disastrous
acquisition of seven -up leaders like Joe Coleman,
openly dissected the failures, Coleman took personal
responsibility, identified lessons learned, even
gave credit to those who had challenged his idea
originally, rather than trying to protect his
own image. That fosters psychological safety?
Absolutely. It fosters a culture where learning
from failure is prioritized over finger -pointing,
makes people feel safe to raise issues. And finally,
Build red flag mechanisms. These are specific
devices, systems that turn information into something
that simply cannot be ignored. A vivid example
is Granite Rock's short pay system. Customers
could unilaterally deduct payment for unsatisfactory
service right from the invoice. Didn't even have
to call the company. Wow, that forces you to
pay attention. Instantly. It forced immediate
attention to problems. Acted as an early warning
system. In a medical context, this might translate
to structured, no -blame incident reporting systems.
where staff feel absolutely safe reporting errors
or near misses without fear of reprisal, knowing
it will lead to systemic improvement. Making
it safe to speak up. Yes. Or it could be patient
feedback loops that aren't just collected, but
actually force an immediate, visible organizational
response to address systemic issues, making inconvenient
truths unavoidable and actionable. That's a critical
point because fear of blame or even just confirmation
bias can be incredibly strong, especially when
dealing with complex patient data or the results
of a long research study where careers might
be on the line. So how can a medical leader,
maybe in a research setting, ensure they are
truly confronting uncomfortable data or failed
hypotheses rather than succumbing to that confirmation
bias or the inherent desire for a positive outcome?
That feels like a real challenge. It is a profound
challenge. And it requires a deliberate, almost
radical commitment to intellectual honesty. In
a research setting, this means fostering an environment
where challenging assumptions isn't just tolerated,
it's actively encouraged, maybe even rewarded.
A leader needs to model the speedings of themselves
by openly acknowledging when their own hypotheses
have been disproven by the data, by demonstrating
genuine curiosity about why the results went
a different way. Leading by example. Yes. It
involves creating formal mechanisms for critical
peer review that go beyond just superficial checks.
Perhaps having rotating devil's advocate roles
in team meetings, specifically tasked with dissecting
potential flaws in methodology interpretation,
even the underlying premises of a study, implementing
robust red flag mechanisms would be vital here
too. This could be a clear protocol for immediately
escalating any unexpected or adverse research
findings, ensuring they aren't buried or rationalized
away because someone wants a neat narrative.
So, systems to surface the awkward results. Right.
For instance, rather than just reviewing aggregate
data, a research lead might insist on directly
examining individual patient outcomes that deviate
from the expected results, no matter how small
the number might seem. It's about instilling
this pervasive sense that the integrity of the
data, the truth of the findings, however uncomfortable,
always takes precedence. Over personal prestige,
over a predetermined story, over the desire for
a particular outcome, the unwavering faith isn't
in a specific hypothesis, it's in the ultimate
success of the scientific method itself, and
its contribution to human knowledge. even if
that means disproving your own work along the
way. Okay, so once you have the right people
and a climate where truth can be heard, how do
you focus all that energy? This brings us to
the hedgehog concept, which you draw from that
ancient Greek parable, the fox and the hedgehog.
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows
one big thing. How does this seemingly simple
idea apply to organizational focus, and how does
it drive greatness? The hedgehog concept is,
at its heart, about profound simplicity. It's
not about being clever or complicated like the
fox, darting about knowing many things. It's
about being like the hedgehog. knowing one big
thing, one simple crystalline idea that provides
a fundamental frame of reference for all decisions.
This concept sits right at the intersection of
three fundamental circles, three crucial questions.
Firstly, what can you be the best in the world
at? Not just good at, but best. Exactly. This
isn't just about what you're currently good at,
or even what your core business has been for
years. It's about what you have the potential
to be truly excellent at, globally. If you cannot
honestly say you can be the best in the world
at your core business, then that business cannot
form the basis of a truly great company. It has
to be replaced, or radically redefined. It demands
brutal honesty about competence and potential.
Secondly, what drives your economic engine? Great
companies identify the single profit -per -ex
denominator or maybe cash flow -per -ex in the
social sector that has the greatest, most sustainable
impact on their viability and growth. Finding
that key metric. Yes. It's not always obvious.
It requires deep insight into your fundamental
economics. A single metric that, when improved,
disproportionately impacts your mission. And
thirdly, What are you deeply passionate about?
This is about activities that genuinely ignite
passion within the organization. Not manufactured
enthusiasm. You're trying to motivate people
from the top down. Real intrinsic passion. Yes.
Discovering the passion that already exists and
harnessing it. What do the people in your organization
truly deeply care about? So best in the world,
economic driver, and passion. All three needed.
All three are absolutely essential for a fully
developed hedgehog concept. If you only make
money doing things you're good at but can't be
the best at, you'll be successful, sure, but
not truly great or enduring. If you become the
best at something but lack that intrinsic passion,
you won't sustain it through the tough times.
And if you're passionate but can't realistically
be the best or make economic sense, well, you'll
have fun, but you won't produce great results
or have lasting impact. Take Walgreens again.
Remember, outperform the market 15 times over.
Their hedgehog concept was beautifully simple.
Be the best at convenient drugstores. Steadily
increasing profit per customer visits. Simple
and clear. Exactly. They were a hedgehog with
this incredibly simple idea. Systematically seeking
the best sites, clustering stores, pioneering
drive -through pharmacies, all reinforcing that
concept. Contrast that with Eckerd, a competitor.
They pursued growth in a real hodgepodge fashion,
acquiring clumps of stores with no unifying theme.
even dabbled in home video rentals, led to fragmented
efforts, mediocrity. The Fox trying too many
things? Correctly. Well, Fargo is another prime
example. They realized they couldn't realistically
be the best global bank like Citicorp. Their
hedgehog concept became the best at running a
bank like a business, with a focus on the Western
United States, using profit per employee as their
economic driver. That focus became a mantra guiding
every decision. And you mentioned a health care
example, Abbott Labs. Yes, a really relevant
one. For years Abbott was a pharmaceutical company
mainly in antibiotics. But they lag behind giants
like Merck and Pfizer. They confronted the brutal
fact. They couldn't realistically become the
best pharmaceutical company in the world. So
guided by level five leadership that Stockdale
Paradox Faith, their hedgehog concept evolved.
It became creating products that contribute to
cost effective health care. This shift in focus.
A significant shift. They strategically moved
toward hospital nutritionals and diagnostic devices
areas where they could be the best in the world.
Abbott became number one in both, radically improved
their performance, their impact. This wasn't
about abandoning their field, but finding their
unique excellence within it. Philip Morris, too,
had a clear hedgehog. Best in the world at building
brand loyalty in cigarettes and later other consumer
products. Profit per global brand category was
the driver, fueled by a deep, almost religious
passion for their brands. It's about singular
focus. What's striking to me is how this applies
down at the level of a medical practice or a
research department. It's about deep self -understanding,
isn't it? Not just bravado or ambition. How can
a clinical team, for example, realistically identify
its hedgehog concept? What unique contribution
can it truly make? What drives its economic engine?
Maybe patient recovery rates or research grant
acquisition. And what genuinely ignites its collective
passion? This seems like a really difficult,
maybe awkward conversation to have internally.
It is difficult, yes, yet profoundly necessary.
For a clinical team or research department, finding
the hedgehog concept is often an iterative process.
It's not usually a single brainstorming session
that just spits out the neat answer. It starts,
as you say, with confronting those brutal facts
about your current capabilities and, crucially,
your limitations. You need to ask, what treatments
or conditions do we truly excel at compared to
others nationally? even globally. Where is our
team's unique clinical or research expertise
genuinely world class, or where does it have
the potential to be? This often needs looking
beyond internal perceptions to external benchmarks.
An honest look in the mirror. Absolutely. For
the economic engine in health care, you're right.
It's not usually financial profit in the traditional
sense. It's about the most impactful, measurable
output that sustains and grows your mission.
It could be patient recovery rate per specialized
surgical procedure, or research grants acquired
per lead investigator for a specific disease,
or maybe successful patient outcomes per integrated
care pathway for complex chronic conditions.
Identifying that single most powerful denominator
forces immense clarity and prioritization. And
the passion part. For passion, it's about what
genuinely ignites the team, what truly gives
them meaning. Is it pioneering new surgical techniques?
Developing compassionate care models for chronic
conditions? Leading the charge in specific disease
eradication? It's not about trying to be passionate
or faking enthusiasm. It's discovering where
that deep intrinsic drive already resides among
your most dedicated people. When a team truly
nails its hedgehog concept, there's often this
distinctive, quiet ping of truth. A profound
sense of clarity, alignment. It's very different
from the mindless bravado we saw in comparison
companies, obsessed with growth for growth's
sake or diversifying endlessly. Greatness paradoxically
often involves having the discipline to say a
resolute no to opportunities, even seemingly
attractive ones if they fall outside those three
intersecting circles. That discipline to say
no. Yes. It's about extreme focus and the quiet,
unwavering confidence that comes from knowing
exactly where your unique contribution and greatest
impact really lie. That discipline you just mentioned
brings us neatly to the fifth principle. a culture
of discipline, freedom within a framework. Discipline
is clearly crucial, but what kind of discipline
are we really talking about here? And how do
you balance that with creativity, entrepreneurship,
especially in an environment like healthcare
that thrives on innovation and often rapid problem
solving? It's vital to understand it's not about
being a tyrant. We saw leaders like Lea Kaka
at Chrysler who initially force discipline through
sheer force of personality. Right, the sincere,
tyrant idea again. But later he lost focus. The
company declined because the discipline was linked
to his presence, not embedded in the underlying
culture. Instead, good to great companies built
a self -sustaining culture of discipline. This
means disciplined people who engage in disciplined
thought and who then take disciplined action.
People, thought, action, all disciplined. Exactly.
When you have disciplined people, you don't necessarily
need extensive hierarchy. When you have discipline
thought, you don't need stifling bureaucracy.
And when you combine this discipline culture
with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get that
magical alchemy. Truly great performance. Take
Abbott Laboratories again. Under George Rathmann's
influence, they created a system. Every manager
was responsible for their return on investment.
instilled deep financial discipline. Okay. But
here's the key. This discipline didn't stifle
creativity. It actually enabled it. By having
tight financial controls, Abbott reduced its
administrative costs to the lowest in its industry.
which freed up substantial resource to fund new
product innovations. Precisely. They derived
up to 65 % of their revenues from new products
introduced in just the previous four years. This
is freedom and responsibility operating within
a highly developed system. Take an airline pilot.
They operate with tremendous freedom, autonomy,
but within very strict disciplined rules. Your
traffic control checklists. Exactly. The discipline
provides the safety, the structure, that allows
bold creative action to flourish rather than
being crushed. And we distinguish this from being
ruthless. Ruthless means hacking and cutting
indiscriminately, often for short -term gain.
Rigorous means consistently applying exacting
standards at all levels, especially upper management.
Ensuring the best people can thrive without being
burdened or pulled down by underperformers. Clearing
the way for talent. Yes, and a key manifestation
of this culture of discipline is the stop doing
list. Stop doing list? I like that. Most of us
just have to -do lists. We do. Always trying
to do more, add more. But good to great companies
displayed remarkable discipline in unplugging
extraneous activities. Things that just didn't
fit their hedgehog concept. Darwin Smith at Kimberly
Clark. He stopped annual Wall Street forecasts,
unplugged titles to reduce class consciousness,
dismantled layers of management by requiring
managers to justify having at least 15 direct
reports, forcing efficiency. Cork Walgreens even
exited the profitable food service business at
Walgreens. Despite it being a long -standing
family tradition, some restaurants were even
named Corkies. Really? Why? Because it didn't
align with their hedgehog concept of convenient
drugstores. This deliberate, often difficult
elimination of non -core activities frees up
invaluable resources and focus. This principle
feels particularly challenging, though, in highly
regulated, complex environments like healthcare,
where every task often feels critical, deeply
interconnected. How do you cultivate a culture
of discipline within a medical practice or a
research facility without just stifling crucial
innovation? or maybe overburdening staff with
endless protocols? And how can you realistically
apply the stop -doing principle in a field where,
well, everything seems critical for patient safety
or research integrity? That's a very perceptive
observation. In healthcare, cultivating a culture
of discipline isn't about imposing rigid bureaucracy
or stifling innovation with excessive rules.
It's more about standardizing the essential,
repeatable processes. Doing that frees up cognitive
load, frees up precious resources for true innovation.
for complex problem solving. So discipline in
the routine frees up creativity for the complex.
That's the idea. Think of creating highly disciplined
systems for routine care, for data collection,
for patient flow, which then enables clinicians
and researchers to apply their creativity, their
expertise, their entrepreneurial spirit to the
most challenging, nuanced cases or groundbreaking
research. The discipline provides the foundation
upon which innovation can safely stand. Now,
applying the stop doing principle in healthcare,
where yes, every task often does seem critical,
that requires immense courage and absolute clarity
of purpose, tied directly back to your hedgehog
concept. It means constantly asking, what are
we doing that is merely good, but doesn't contribute
directly to what we can truly be the best in
the world at? What activities don't genuinely
ignite our passion or disproportionately drive
our core mission? For a hospital, it might mean
rigorously evaluating which specialized services,
even if they generate some revenue, don't align
with their hedgehog concept. Perhaps they're
better delivered by other institutions that can
be world -class in that specific area. Strategic
focus, even if it means letting something go.
Yes. For a research lab, it could mean discontinuing
research lines that, while may be interesting,
are unlikely to lead to breakthrough discoveries
given the lab's unique strengths, even if external
funding is available for them. It might mean
saying a polite but firm no to grant opportunities
that fall outside the hedgehog. Or ruthlessly
streamlining administrative processes that drain
valuable time from direct patient care or research,
even if they've always been done that way. Challenging
the status quo. Exactly. The goal is to focus
finite resources, time, talent, capital on the
areas where the organization can have the greatest
impact and achieve genuine excellence. Okay,
sixth principle. In a world where medical technology
is advancing at an almost dizzying pace, AI,
digital health, they're often heralded as the
ultimate solutions, aren't they? Technology is
frequently seen as the primary driver of change,
the silver bullet for progress. What did your
rigorous research actually reveal about its role
in the good -to -great transformation? Was it
the magic solution, many assume? It's a pervasive
assumption, isn't it? And we actually found something
quite contrary to popular belief. The good -to
-great companies never used technology as the
primary means of igniting a transformation. Never.
Never as the primary spark. Technology alone
cannot make a company great. However, And this
is the vital paradox. Once they had their clear
hedgehog concept and the right people and the
disciplines in place, then they were pioneers
in the careful application of carefully selected
technologies. Okay, so not the initiator, but
maybe an amplifier. Exactly. Technology acted
as an accelerator of momentum, but only after
the hedgehog concept was clear, only after the
right people and discipline culture were firmly
in place. It amplified the core mission. It didn't
define it or create it. They understood technology
as a tool. not a strategy in itself. Consider
Walgreens again. They invested heavily in Intercom,
their satellite system linking all stores, long
before others in the industry. They pioneered
scanners, robotics, and their pharmacies. Early
adopters then. Yes, but crucially, this wasn't
to create their convenience concept. It was to
accelerate it. make it faster, more reliable,
more pervasive. When the internet emerged, they
deliberately integrated it to enhance their existing
convenience model, online prescriptions for drive
-through pickup, that sort of thing, rather than
panicking, chasing the dot -com bubble without
a clear purpose, which many comparison companies
did, much to their detriment. Sticking to their
hedgehog. Yes. Similarly, Fannie Mae. Transformation
began in 81, but they only became a pioneer in
technology. those sophisticated algorithms for
mortgage risk assessment and processing in the
early 1990s. After their hedgehog concept was
solid, their core business model was sound. Technology,
in their case, was called the second wind of
the transformation, amplifying already established
momentum. And Gillette, the razor blade company.
pioneers in manufacturing technology. Protecting
their blade -making secrets like Coca -Cola protects
its formula. Their investment in things like
laser welding for blades was testament to technological
pioneering within their already world -class
core competence. The critical question for these
companies was always, does this technology fit
directly with our hedgehog concept? Does it accelerate
what we could be best at? The asset test. If
the answer was yes, they became a pioneer in
its application, invested heavily. If no, they
asked if it was needed at all. If so, maybe just
seek parity. Otherwise, ignore the hype. Avoid
that technology trap of adopting innovations
just for their own sake. This raises a really
crucial question for health care today. With
this constant, often overwhelming flood of advancements,
medtech, AI, digital health, how can medical
institutions avoid this technology trap? Adopting
innovations just because they exist, because
they're new, rather than as true accelerators
for their core mission, whether that's patient
care, specific research areas, or hospital efficiency.
And maybe you could give us a good example of
technology accelerating a medical breakthrough
rather than initiating it. It's a pervasive end.
and frankly, expensive challenge in healthcare.
The technology trap is incredibly real. Institutions
adopt the latest shiny gadget, the newest AI
platform. Because it's new, it promises a future,
rather than because it rigorously aligns with
their hedgehog concept and core strategic priorities.
To avoid this, medical institutions must first
achieve absolute clarity on their core purpose,
their unique contribution. What is their hedgehog?
For instance, if a hospital's hedgehog concept
had to be the best in the world at complex cardiac
surgery with superior patient recovery rates,
then investing in and pioneering advanced robotic
surgical systems could be a true technology accelerator.
It directly amplifies what they already aim to
be best at. It directly improves their economic
denominator, those recovery rates. That makes
sense. It's not about buying the robot just because
it's available. It's because it precisely enhances
their core mission, their unique excellence.
A strong historical example of technology accelerating
rather than initiating. Think about advanced
diagnostic imaging, specifically ultra high -resolution
MRI or PD scans and oncology. Right. Imaging
and cancer care. The underlying physics of these
technologies existed for some time. But their
pioneering, disciplined application in cancer
care didn't create the mission of treating cancer.
That mission was already there. Instead, it accelerated
the ability of oncologist surgeons to precisely
identify tumor margins, to monitor treatment
response with unprecedented accuracy, to ultimately
refine and improve patient outcomes dramatically.
The focus remained squarely on the patient, on
the disease. Technology served as a powerful
enabling tool. not the driving force. This ensures
resources are invested strategically, with purpose,
not just chasing every new technological wave
that comes along. So many leaders, and I think
patients too, often look for that single miracle
moment in transformation, don't they? A sudden
breakthrough, a grand announcement, maybe a new
drug that changes everything overnight. But your
research found something quite different. It
suggests a far more gradual, maybe... less dramatic
process. Absolutely. We found that great transformations
never happened in one fell swoop. There was no
single dramatic breakthrough moment that accounted
for the change. Instead, they were a cumulative
process. It resembled relentlessly pushing a
giant heavy flywheel. The flywheel? Yes. Pushing
it in one consistent direction, turn upon turn,
building momentum, until eventually a point of
breakthrough is reached. No single push, no matter
how large, accounted for that ultimate breakthrough.
It was the sun. of consistent efforts accumulated
over time often years even decades so slow steady
consistent pressure exactly this means there
was no miracle moment no grand program launch
no splashy tagline or single event designed to
signify the transformation it was an organic
evolutionary process often unnoticed externally
until significant momentum was truly achieved
From the inside, executives described it as just
a series of good decisions, diligently executed,
accumulating one on top of another. For example,
Kimberly Clark's dramatic shift, even selling
the mills, described by its leaders as a gradual
cumulative evolution over years. Newcore, the
steel company. initially just trying to avoid
bankruptcy, eventually became the number one
steel company by consistently applying its hedgehog
concept, building mini mills, gaining customers
incrementally over decades, not through a sutter
flash of brilliance or a single master stroke.
And you contrast this flywheel effect with something
you call the doom loop, which you observed in
the comparison companies. What does that look
like and why do so many fall into it? The doom
loop. It's characterized by chronic inconsistency.
Companies lurching erratically from one new strategy
to another, launching big splashy programs that
quickly fizzle out, constantly searching for
a new savior leader to fix everything, making
acquisitions just for growth without a clear
unifying concept. Chasing the next big thing,
constantly changing direction. Precisely. And
crucially, new leaders would often stop an already
spinning flywheel, maybe one that was just starting
to gain momentum, and throw it in a completely
new, often incompatible direction only to repeat
the cycle. starting over, losing all prior momentum.
It's exhausting and ineffective. Warner Lambert,
for instance, went through three major restructurings
in less than two decades, cut 20 ,000 people,
always searching for quick breakthroughs. They'd
get a brief burst of results, maybe, then slacken,
never achieve sustained momentum. Eventually,
they were acquired. Lost their way. Yes. Harris
Corporation, another example, initially built
momentum with a clear concept, but a new CEO
stopped that flywheel. completely divested its
core profitable printing business for an ill
-fated venture into office automation. The company
went into steep decline. They consistently sold
the sizzle, new products, new initiatives, but
never delivered the stake of consistent disciplined
execution. The flywheel, by contrast, applies
to both external stakeholders and internal teams.
When people, the investors, or critically, Employees
see consistent, tangible results coming from
disciplined actions aligned with a clear concept.
Enthusiasm builds organically. They line up with
enthusiasm. It becomes infectious. People want
to be part of something that is clearly working,
building momentum, achieving real impact. One
turn of the flywheel at a time. This seems particularly
relevant in medical research, where true breakthroughs
often come after years, maybe decades, of incremental,
consistent effort, rather than that single eureka
moment. Professor Imam, how does this flywheel
concept help medical professionals manage that
immense, often relentless pressure? Pressure
for quick results for dramatic breakthroughs
in patient care or research, especially pressure
coming from funders or the public. That pressure
for quick results for the instant breakthrough,
it's enormous in medicine and research, driven
by urgent patient needs, tight funding cycles,
media expectations. It's intense. The flywheel
concept is a vital counter -narrative to this.
It helps medical professionals understand that
enduring success isn't about one grand discovery
or a single revolutionary clinical trial that
solves everything overnight. It's about the relentless,
consistent application of scientific rigor, meticulous
patient care, continuous improvement, day after
day, year after year. The long game. Exactly.
For a research team, it means understanding that
each well -designed experiment, each carefully
analyzed dataset, each rigorous peer -reviewed
publication, each collaborative discussion, however
small it seems, is a crucial turn of the flywheel.
It's the cumulative effect of these disciplined,
consistent efforts, all aligned with our hedgehog
concept, say, being the best in specific gene
therapy for a rare disease that eventually leads
to a clinical breakthrough or a fundamental scientific
discovery. It's about celebrating those incremental
wins, demonstrating the visible, tangible progress
that builds internal confidence, attracts further
resources, drags talent, making the long game
sustainable. And in patient care? In patient
care, it's about consistent adherence to best
practices. continuous professional development,
iterative refinement of care pathways. Each improved
patient outcome, each successful discharge, each
instance of compassionate care, consistently
delivered. That contributes to the hospital's
reputation, its expertise, its overall capability.
Turn by turn, the flywheel teaches patients.
Persistence. It ensures leaders manage expectations
by focusing on consistent effort, verifiable
progress, rather than chasing every new fad or
promising a miracle cure that hasn't been earned
through years of disciplined, cumulative work.
When the team sees that their sustained efforts
do lead to better results, they're intrinsically
motivated to keep pushing that flywheel. We've
spent this deep dive exploring how organizations
achieve sustained great results. But what about
enduring greatness? What does it truly take to
build something that lasts for generations, that
remains iconic, relevant, even in an ever -evolving
field like healthcare? Is there something beyond
just being great? This takes us directly to the
connection with our previous work, the Build
to Last research. Achieving sustained great results,
which has been our focus in this deep dive, is
essentially a prequel to becoming an enduring,
iconic organization. The two frameworks are deeply
interconnected, but distinct in their focus.
So good to great comes first, then built to last.
In essence, yes. The key to enduring greatness,
the built to last idea, is to discover and embed
a core ideology. This ideology comprises enduring
core values and a purpose that goes beyond just
making money, or in healthcare, beyond merely
treating symptoms or performing procedures. This
ideology serves as an unwavering anchor. It provides
a fundamental sense of identity, direction. While
everything else, strategies, practices, technologies,
leaders, is continually stimulated for progress
and adaptation, it's the dynamic of preserve
the core, stimulate progress. Preserve the core,
stimulate progress. Okay. Think of Hewlett -Packard.
They're founders, Bill Hewlett and David Packard.
They focused first on who building a great company
with like -minded people before they even figured
out what products they would make. Later, they
instilled deep core values, technical contribution,
respect for the individual, a belief that profit
wasn't the fundamental goal, but a byproduct.
These values became the unchanging core. Or consider
Merck's longstanding philosophy, medicine is
for the patient. Profits follow a powerful statement
of purpose indeed this core purpose guided their
decisions even difficult ones Like giving away
a drug that cured river blindness when patients
in affected regions couldn't possibly afford
it They preserve that core ideology that foundational
commitment while constantly stimulating progress
in their research and development Never resting
on their laurels. So for a medical audience This
could mean embedding a core purpose, like advancing
human health or maybe pioneering compassionate
care, something that transcends individual clinical
achievements or departmental goals, becomes the
very DNA of the institution. Professor Imam,
what's an example of a medical institution that
you believe truly embodies this preserve the
core, stimulate progress philosophy, maintaining
its unique identity while constantly evolving
at the cutting edge? A profoundly compelling
example in the medical field, I think, that embodies
this preserve the core, simulate progress philosophy,
would be institutions like the Mayo Clinic. Ah,
yes, Mayo Clinic. Their core ideology, deeply
embedded since their founding over a century
ago, revolves around one simple idea. The needs
of the patient come first. This is their unchanging
anchor. A profound, almost sacred commitment
to integrated patient -centered care. A collaborative
model of practice where specialists work together
for the patient. A dedication to education and
research to continuously improve patient outcomes.
This unwavering core purpose is what they zealously
preserve. The constant core. Yes. However, Everything
else around that core is really... AO Clinic
has pioneered numerous advancements in medical
technology, surgical techniques, research methodologies.
They continuously adapt their organizational
structure, adopt new digital health platforms,
embrace novel diagnostic tools and therapies.
They invest heavily in genomic medicine, AI for
clinical decision support, advanced regenerative
therapies. The list goes on. Always innovating.
Always. But... And this is crucial. Every single
one of these innovations, every strategic decision,
must ultimately serve and amplify that core purpose,
putting the patient's needs first. They evolve,
they innovate at the cutting edge, but they never
lose sight of who they are and what they fundamentally
stand for. This allows them to remain iconic,
relevant, and great across generations of medical
advancement. Professor Imam, this has been an
absolutely invaluable deep dive. It truly reframes
how we might think about greatness. To recap
for our listeners. Achieving sustained greatness,
whether in a multinational corporation or a hospital
department, it's not really about grand gestures
or magic bullets, is it? Not at all. It's a disciplined
cumulative process, starting with level five
leadership, that paradoxical blend of personal
humility and fierce professional will, then getting
the right people on the bus and in the right
seats, courageously confronting the brutal facts
of your reality while never losing faith, focusing
on a crystal clear hedgehog concept, fostering
a pervasive culture of discipline that actually
empowers rather than stifles. And finally, using
technology not as a savior but as a powerful
accelerator for momentum already built. It's
really a profound shift in perspective. Precisely.
These principles, though derived from extensive
corporate analysis, offer a remarkably powerful
and, I think, practical framework for mid -senior
medical professionals striving for excellence.
In their practice, their department, their research,
they show that greatness isn't an accident. or
stroke of luck. It's a direct result of deliberate,
consistent choices and persistent disciplined
action. And perhaps the most provocative thought
for you, our listener, to maybe mull over long
after this deep dive ends. If your work is something
you truly care about and you believe in its purpose
deeply enough, then trying to make it great becomes
not so much a question of why, but a clear, compelling,
and ultimately achievable path of how. If you
found this deep dive valuable, please do consider
leaving us a rating and sharing it with a colleague
who might benefit. Thank you so much, Professor
Moe Mom, for your incredible insights today.
Thank you. It's been a pleasure. And thank you
for listening. We'll be back next time with another
deep dive into the world's most compelling ideas.