In 2009, Stanford business professor Tina Seelig split her class into groups and issued a challenge:
Each group had $5 and 2 hours to make the highest return on the money.
At the end, they'd give a short presentation on their strategy.
What happened next was fascinating:
Each group had $5 and 2 hours to make the highest return on the money.
At the end, they'd give a short presentation on their strategy.
What happened next was fascinating:
Most of the groups followed a simple approach:
• Use the $5 to buy a few items.
• Barter or resell those items.
• Repeat
• Sell final items for (hopefully) more than $5.
These groups made a modest return on their initial $5.
• Use the $5 to buy a few items.
• Barter or resell those items.
• Repeat
• Sell final items for (hopefully) more than $5.
These groups made a modest return on their initial $5.
A few groups ignored the $5.
They thought up ways to make the most money in the allotted time:
• Made/sold reservations at hot restaurants.
• Refilled bike tires on campus.
These groups made a good return on the initial $5.
The winning group took a very different approach:
They thought up ways to make the most money in the allotted time:
• Made/sold reservations at hot restaurants.
• Refilled bike tires on campus.
These groups made a good return on the initial $5.
The winning group took a very different approach:
They had three realizations:
1. The $5 was a distraction.
2. The 2 hours of time was not enough to make an attractive, outsized return with a mini-business.
3. The most valuable "asset" was actually the presentation time in front of a class of Stanford students.
1. The $5 was a distraction.
2. The 2 hours of time was not enough to make an attractive, outsized return with a mini-business.
3. The most valuable "asset" was actually the presentation time in front of a class of Stanford students.
Recognizing the value of the hidden asset, they offered the presentation time to companies looking to recruit Stanford students.
They sold the slot for $650, a huge return on the $5 of initial capital.
The winning group thought differently and achieved an asymmetric outcome.
They sold the slot for $650, a huge return on the $5 of initial capital.
The winning group thought differently and achieved an asymmetric outcome.
So, what can we learn from this story?
Here are 3 steps to start thinking differently:
Here are 3 steps to start thinking differently:
Step 1: Avoid the Distraction
There will always be an "obvious" solution that is simple, clear, and entirely wrong.
In the challenge, the $5 was nothing more than a distraction. It was a trap.
To find the best path, you have to avoid the distraction.
There will always be an "obvious" solution that is simple, clear, and entirely wrong.
In the challenge, the $5 was nothing more than a distraction. It was a trap.
To find the best path, you have to avoid the distraction.
Step 2: Ask Foundational Questions
Ask and answer questions that expose and vet underlying assumptions and logic.
• What's the real problem you are trying to solve?
• What's your hypothesis? Why?
• What are your core assumptions? Why?
(continued)
Ask and answer questions that expose and vet underlying assumptions and logic.
• What's the real problem you are trying to solve?
• What's your hypothesis? Why?
• What are your core assumptions? Why?
(continued)
• What evidence do you have?
• What are your core options?
• What alternatives exist?
This takes time, but it's an essential exercise when facing a problem with the potential for non-linear rewards.
• What are your core options?
• What alternatives exist?
This takes time, but it's an essential exercise when facing a problem with the potential for non-linear rewards.
Step 3: Select the High Leverage Approach
Slow down and evaluate the options on the table.
Select the path most likely to generate the asymmetric, attractive risk-adjusted returns.
Slow down and evaluate the options on the table.
Select the path most likely to generate the asymmetric, attractive risk-adjusted returns.
If the story teaches us one thing, it's this:
Creative, non-linear, asymmetric thinking generates creative, non-linear, asymmetric outcomes.
Enjoy this? Share it with your friends and follow me @SahilBloom for more in future. x.com
Creative, non-linear, asymmetric thinking generates creative, non-linear, asymmetric outcomes.
Enjoy this? Share it with your friends and follow me @SahilBloom for more in future. x.com
Step 2 is a riff on a Socratic Questioning process.
Ask and answer questions that vet underlying assumptions and logic:
• Start with open-ended Qs
• Propose ideas based on these Qs
• Probe these ideas with progressive questioning
• Repeat until the best ideas are developed
Ask and answer questions that vet underlying assumptions and logic:
• Start with open-ended Qs
• Propose ideas based on these Qs
• Probe these ideas with progressive questioning
• Repeat until the best ideas are developed
If you can remember one takeaway from this post:
There will always be an "obvious" solution that is simple, clear, and entirely wrong.
There will always be an "obvious" solution that is simple, clear, and entirely wrong.
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...