Roland on Strategy - You're likely overusing it!

This is a story, but I’ll keep it short(ish).

The moral: “Strategy” is severely overused in life sciences/pharma/healthcare, its meaning is diluted, and it distracts from what true strategy should be.

The stage: When I was a child, I was very good at chess (don’t worry about my bragging, the story will humble me soon enough).

The preparation: When I was about 11, I played in my first Chess National Championships in Romania. I had prepared for the competition for a year, waking up at 5-6 AM on most days, preparing for a couple of hours before school, usually reading a chess book and practicing the moves by myself. In the afternoons I played against my tutor, including blind games, an excruciating mental exercise. I played in weekly blitz competitions and near-monthly tournaments. I prepared well and I hadn’t lost against anyone even remotely close to my age in about a year. I was ready: I had the preparation, the mental fortitude, and the confidence. What could possibly go wrong?

The heartbreak: At the start of the Championship I did well, I applied what I had learned, and I went through three rounds without losing. Enter round four: I knew my opponent by reputation, I had studied some of his games and I was ready. He was aggressive, as was I. We traded blows for a few hours, tactically equal at every step, and then I had a sudden and brutal realization: the game was lost. I was in a position I did not intend to be in, a position I had no control over, I was not the one steering the game, but someone was…he had a vision, he was calm about the execution of his vision, his hand moving the pieces slowly, taking notes in a nice, round font; his demeanor troubled me, I was thinking “what does he know that I don’t?” (You see, making moves on the board is one thing, but there is an entirely different game going on off the board. Every body movement, every gesture is relevant, you can wear your opponent down simply by being calm on the surface, by never hesitating when you make a move, by staring at them when they’re thinking about their next move, go ahead, be weird!). Anyway, after four hours of battle, I stopped the clock, extended my hand in defeat, signed the note sheet, got up, and left. I wasn’t that upset about losing, I had lost before, my opponent more than deserved it, and my tutor always said you learn more from a defeat than a win. I was deeply troubled though; I didn’t understand why I lost and that indeed had never happened before. I was never before dominated in such an absolute, but discreet manner.

The analysis (and more heartbreak): After four hours of mental gymnastics, one would think it’s time to rest. One would be wrong – there is no better time for analysis than straight after a game, particularly a loss when the pain is still fresh. I went through the game with my tutor, repeating the moves, and I could tell he knew what was going on, even though I still thought I played a perfect game. He said something along the lines of: “Your opponent is playing a game of strategy”. I was very surprised, and I asked, “And what am I playing then?” to which he replied half-disappointedly, “Something else”. It took me another few years to truly realize the difference between a tactical game and a strategic game.

The late implications: Nowadays, my professional circles are filled with “Strategy”, it’s impossible to open LinkedIn and not find a thousand people doing “Strategy”. After all my learnings, all that I am left with is “Are they?”. I think not, I think most people claiming to do strategy fall within the “Something else” category, and they/their organizations are heading toward heartache.

Disclaimer: I do apologize to those who are truly involved in strategy. I do not wish to minimize anyone’s merits, just providing food for thought. Additionally, I do not consider myself a pure strategist, but rather a devout student.

I hope you enjoyed reading and please let me know your thoughts.

All the best,

Roland.