IYKYK: Leave the Vortex, Take the Influence

It’s not just your kids who aspire to become influencers. Attracting attention –- often through provocative content delivered through social media at high volume –- can seem increasingly like a business imperative, as the a16z co-founders have described (here, here) and, in the case of Andreessen, unhesitatingly embraced.

The Attention Imperative

But they’re not alone; many physicians, researchers, and policy wonks are gamely experimenting with short video content. A top health reporter and print journalist somewhat sheepishly confessed to me that she was “going to try making some short videos this fall — if you can’t beat ‘em….”

I’ve also spoken with prospective writers who want to discuss with me ideas they have for books they’re contemplating. They’ve passed on the remarkable (or perhaps not so remarkable) feedback that they seem to be receiving from agents and editors -– namely that while of course the quality of ideas still matter, publishers (ultimately) also are keenly interested in the size of your audience –- number of followers, what popular podcasts you can get booked on, etc.

You can see the principle of accumulated advantage –- the rich get richer –- playing out before your eyes, and recognize that beyond emotional neediness, there is also real economic value at stake in getting noticed, especially given the centrality of algorithms that select for activating content.

Yet in this age of escalating bombast, I’ve been encouraged by several recent examples of healthcare leaders who have demonstrated through understated personal example that there’s another way.

Curious, Not Reactive

The first is an approach I was reminded of by two distinct examples this week, involving leaders in different organizations in disparate regions of the country. In both cases, a thoughtful piece of original content from the leader had triggered an outsized reply, and the executive was faced with a choice of how to respond.

Rather than follow the contemporary playbook and fight fire with fire, both leaders elected to reply with thoughtful, considered responses, pushing back against points they disagreed in a calm and composed fashion.

The insight for me wasn’t the public response -– probably what many PR firms might advise, or at least (according to a16z) the old-school ones -– but rather the private rationale.

After acknowledging that the provocateur in question was “built for the attention economy,” one leader explained to me, “I usually find that I learn something from him, even when I disagree, and that he’s more often a force for good than the converse,” adding, “Doesn’t mean he’s always right — he’s not.”

The ability to approach (at least some) attention-seekers with genuine curiosity, and a true desire to learn, seem to have allowed both of these leaders to respond thoughtfully rather than reactively, maintaining dignity and credibility in a way that might not win the day’s X exchange, but was clearly recognized and appreciated by those who had observed it.

Not Confusing Heat With Light

The extent to which many of us have been so distracted by the drama of social media that we’re forgetting how distorting it can be was highlighted in a wonderful recent walk-and-talk around the Charles with a phenomenally successful –- and relatively low-profile –- biopharma leader I’ve known for some time.

In our conversation, he was describing his experiences to me in what seems like an unusually eventful and remarkably productive year, marked by financing, transactions, and encouraging regulatory engagement. Along the way, he told me, he received lots of advice and benefited from much of it.

But what really struck him, he said, was how many of the most impactful and powerful people in the biopharma system with whom he interacted were people like himself, with little or no social media presence, but whose credibility on the basis of experience, connections, capital, and insight nevertheless had turned them into –- well -– influencers. They’re not in the headlines, they’re not engaged in the latest X spat, but they contribute disproportionately to the shape and success of the industry. They are the people for whom the phrase IYKYK (if you know, you know) seems to have been invented.

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that you don’t have to descend into the social media maelstrom to exert influence in health and medicine. True, a few seem to have dived in and emerged not just unscathed but elevated, enhancing their careers while maintaining their credibility. Scott Gottlieb and Eric Topol both come to mind here — largely, in my mind, on the enduring strength of their publications and longer essays.

Yet for each Gottlieb and Topol there seem to be so many others desperately seeking attention, with cringy content that is gratuitously provocative, AI-generated, and frequently both.

The good news is there’s another way –- and we can pursue it by prioritizing quality in our work, authenticity in our interactions, and approaching provocateurs with curiosity, a judo move that allows us to extract the insight and sidestep the distraction.

It’s what many of our industry’s most effective leaders have been doing -– quietly -– for years.