\u201cThe reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200aGeorge Bernard\u00a0Shaw<\/p>\n
Imagine you\u2019ve washed ashore on a distant, unknown island. You\u2019re immediately faced with a local tribe whose intentions are unclear. Your next move could be the difference between life and death. Vadim Zeland offers three possibilities:<\/p>\n
You could become a victim, pleading for your\u00a0life?
\nYou fight for your life, wielding aggression as your only language?
\nOr perhaps there\u2019s a third path, few of us would consider, an unreasonable one?<\/p>\n
Unreasonable?<\/p>\n
What if you projected unshakeable authority. What if you projected yourself not as a mere leader, but as a figure of unquestionable power, perhaps even as a deity? Such an audacious stance is often dismissed as wholly unreasonable. Yet it is precisely this kind of strategic ambition that drives meaningful change and innovation. It is not about what currently exists but about stretching towards what could\u00a0exist.<\/p>\n
Strategic ambition is deliberately unreasonable. It\u2019s not about targets and timelines. It is about crafting visions that inspire, energise, and demand commitment from those around you. As Gary Hamel eloquently puts it: \u201cNo organisation outperforms its aspirations.\u201d <\/em>Before we look at examples from the business world, consider the following from the movie\u00a0world.<\/p>\n T1000 SFX<\/p>\n \u201cIf you set your goals ridiculously high and it\u2019s a failure, you will fail above everyone else\u2019s success.\u201d\u2015 James\u00a0Cameron<\/p>\n James Cameron, the visionary director behind groundbreaking films like Terminator<\/em>, Titanic, Avatar<\/em> and The Abyss<\/em>, embodies the principle of unreasonable ambition<\/em>. Cameron had an ambitious vision for the original Terminator<\/em>: a machine so technologically advanced it seemed impossible at the time. His original script included two Terminators but he had to scrap that idea due to technological and budgetary restrictions. Despite a modest budget of just six million dollars, Cameron challenged his team to deliver visuals and effects that pushed well beyond contemporary technological limits. They did push every boundary possible, but the technology simply wasn\u2019t\u00a0ready.<\/p>\n Undeterred, Cameron pressed forward with his next project. When creating The Abyss<\/em>, recent advancements in special effects now allowed him to depict a liquid-like, underwater alien\u200a\u2014\u200asomething previously inconceivable.<\/p>\n By the time he returned with Terminator 2: Judgment Day<\/em>, Cameron was finally able to realise the spectacular imagery he originally envisioned for The<\/em> Terminator<\/em>. The iconic liquid-metal T-1000 became a visual landmark, helping propel the film to massive box office success. During the making of Terminator 2<\/em>, Cameron recalls vividly how his team stretched far beyond what was deemed possible:<\/p>\n \u201cWe knew we were stretching limits because we could feel the tearing sensation that goes with that stretching. We were really feeling the stress of trying to push beyond things we\u2019d done before. Sometimes you tend to overreach and realise you can\u2019t do it much better than before, because you were already pushing at a hundred percent. But fortunately, I was working with really good people, and we were able to go\u00a0beyond.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Bars Hospital\u00a0Scene<\/p>\n Cameron\u2019s leadership wasn\u2019t about pushing people past breaking points; it was about fostering a creative tension, presenting seemingly impossible challenges that inspired his team to innovate. As he described, his visual effects collaborators initially doubted their ability to achieve certain effects, like the T-1000 seamlessly walking through\u00a0bars:<\/p>\n \u201cThey said before they started the film, they didn\u2019t know if they could do the shots. I asked, \u2018What does that mean? Are we going to find out in six months?\u2019 They responded, \u2018We\u2019ll talk about it for a few weeks, we\u2019ll look at our software, we\u2019ll think of ways to solve it.\u2019 And it became a give-and-take. They\u2019d come back and say, \u2018If you don\u2019t move the camera on this shot, we think we can do it.\u2019 I was pushing\u00a0them.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n This spirit of collaborative ambition, of reaching just beyond current technological frontiers, exemplifies what our guest on The Innovation Show<\/a> Gary Hamel<\/a> calls Strategic Intent. When discussing Cameron\u2019s journey with Gary on The Innovation Show, I highlighted how Cameron\u2019s strategic intent drove him and his team right to the edge of their capabilities\u200a\u2014\u200aand then compelled them to build new ones. Eventually, the market shifted, technology evolved, and Cameron\u2019s original vision was unlocked.<\/p>\n Reflecting on this, Gary\u00a0noted:<\/p>\n \u201cEverybody needs that ambitious idea somewhere in the back of their head\u200a\u2014\u200athe thought that says, \u2018Wouldn\u2019t it be great if\u2026?\u2019 Cameron had this clear vision of what he wanted to communicate, what he wanted on the screen. Initially, the technology couldn\u2019t support it. But that\u2019s precisely how you create the future. So many of us become captive to what currently is, and we struggle to imagine what could be. We\u2019re constantly told something\u2019s impossible or unfeasible. Yet that ambition to dream beyond today\u2019s limits is essential.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cMost organisations have ADD\u200a\u2014\u200aAmbition Deficit Disorder.\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200aGary\u00a0Hamel<\/p>\n A recurrent theme across our multiple-part series, is what Gary laments to be a pervasiveness of Organisational ADD<\/em>. HE emphasises that true ambition must ignite a profound willingness to sacrifice; it must be worthy, compelling, and noble. In his work, he often cites powerful examples of bold strategic ambition, such as that of CEMEX. The Mexican cement giant\u2019s strategic purpose transcended mere profit and the mundane production of bags of grey powder. Instead, the company was driven by a higher vision: enabling affordable housing for those who needed it most\u200a\u2014\u200aa truly noble cause. Similarly, Charles Schwab\u2019s daring leap into online banking wasn\u2019t about chasing digital trends, but a deeply held aspiration to become \u201cguardians of customers\u2019 financial lives.\u201d Such strategic ambitions offer moral clarity, galvanise employees, enable organisations to outpace traditional rivals, and set new industry benchmarks.<\/p>\n Yet despite these luminous examples, organisational timidity still prevails. Hamel and his late collaborator C.K. Prahalad consistently warned against the temptation of \u201cparing down ambitions\u201d merely to align with comfortable, existing resources. While modest ambitions seem safe and achievable, they invariably leave enormous potential untapped. Instead, Hamel advocates deliberately creating what he calls a \u201cpurposeful misfit\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200aan intentional gap between current capabilities and future aspirations. This gap becomes your organisation\u2019s strategic ambition, an arena where scarcity of resources fuels creativity, innovation, and resilience. It is precisely within this chasm between today\u2019s reality and tomorrow\u2019s potential that ingenuity flourishes, enabling the development of new capabilities for your next ambitious leap.<\/p>\n Former Chief Technologist at Corning, Waguih Ishak<\/a> shared<\/a> how Wendell Weeks, CEO of Corning Incorporated<\/a>, epitomises this philosophy of strategic stretch and unreasonable ambition. Weeks is famously relentless in challenging his teams to surpass their self-imposed boundaries. Recently, when a Corning engineer proudly proposed a brilliant improvement that would boost technology efficiency by 25 percent, Weeks responded provocatively: \u201cWhy not 50 percent?\u201d<\/p>\n The engineer initially balked, stunned by the sheer audacity of the question. Yet, just like we saw with James Cameron, such seemingly unrealistic challenges force us\u200a\u2014\u200aand our teams\u200a\u2014\u200ato consider radical possibilities we may have previously dismissed as impossible. Weeks knows that true breakthroughs rarely emerge from cautious incrementalism; they spring from seemingly unreasonable challenges.<\/p>\n In a 2015, Keynote, Weeks elaborates on his leadership philosophy:<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m a capitalist. I believe capitalism is the best tool to allocate resources and drive progress efficiently. But we can continue to evolve and improve that tool to create more paths to success. Metrics emphasising near-term results were developed when capital was scarce; today, we\u2019re awash in capital. We must create a balanced approach between near-term payoffs and long-term investment. Leaders need to continually ask challenging questions: What is our unique contribution to the world? How can we be the best at what we do? How do we focus equally on managing scarce talent as on managing plentiful capital? How do we continually create better versions of ourselves?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Supporting this viewpoint, former CTO, Waguih Ishak<\/a> emphasises<\/a> that organisations must deliberately encourage \u201cunreasonable\u201d thinking. During a scenario-planning exercise, a respected Corning scientist provocatively asked: \u201cWhat if a competitor developed a method to deposit magnetic films on glass without high temperatures?\u201d<\/em>\u200a\u2014\u200adirectly challenging one of Corning\u2019s core, industry-leading capabilities. Initially, the room responded with scepticism and laughter. Yet, this seemingly impractical scenario soon sparked profound strategic discussions about innovation readiness and managing competitive threats. While finding executive time for such exercises is often challenging, Ishak highlights that scenario-planning activities not only rehearse the possible but also stretch the organisational mindset\u200a\u2014\u200aunlocking new thinking that can transform how we approach the\u00a0present.<\/p>\n Ultimately, strategic ambition is less about immediate feasibility and more about stretching our thinking to explore new opportunities. We must continuously ask ourselves and our organisations:<\/p>\n Are we truly stretching our ambition beyond what currently seems achievable? Only by daring to ask \u201cWhy not?\u201d instead of \u201cCan we?\u201d can we achieve meaningful progress and innovation. Ambition shouldn\u2019t simply match the limits of today; it must seek to redefine the limits of tomorrow.<\/p>\n Find latest episode of The Gary Hamel Series on \u201cStrategic Intent\u201d\u00a0below.<\/p>\n In a few days, we welcome Joseph L. Bower, who inspired Gary and so many others with his theory of The Resource Allocation Process.<\/p>\n https:\/\/medium.com\/media\/e3330b3df75ac3059294e90c2c6e7476\/href<\/a><\/p>\n Unreasonable Ambition: The Engine of Progress<\/a> was originally published in The Thursday Thought<\/a> on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.<\/p>\n The post Unreasonable Ambition: The Engine of Progress<\/a> appeared first on The Innovation Show<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cThe reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200aGeorge Bernard\u00a0Shaw Imagine you\u2019ve washed ashore on a distant, unknown island. You\u2019re immediately faced with a local tribe whose intentions are unclear. Your next move could be the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":1508,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nJames Cameron, Liquid Metal, and the Power of Unreasonable Ambition<\/h3>\n
Organisational ADD<\/h3>\n
Week\u2019s Anything But Weak\u00a0Ambition<\/h3>\n
\nAre we creating environments where unreasonable questions are welcomed rather than ridiculed?
\nAre we managing talent and ingenuity as deliberately as we manage expenditure?<\/p>\n