…is that causal reasoning (starting with a firm goal in mind) shouldn’t get in the way of serendipitous discovery.
I wrote a couple of days ago about causal vs effectual reasoning - a comment from Jeri on that post got me thinking about the downside of causal/entrepreneurial as opposed to effectual/entrepreneurial thinking.
Marc Andreessen, bless him, has brought this into relief in his latest startup installment. I’ve been a big fan of the startup series to date, and this one comes with a timely reminder about the power of serendipity. He talks about startups not needing to stick to their original business plan - things change - and there is no way of knowing where the journey will end. Here’s the punchline:
The point is this:
If Thomas Edison didn’t know what he had when he invented the phonograph while he thought he was trying to create better industrial equipment for telegraph operators…
…what are the odds that you — or any entrepreneur — is going to have it all figured out up front?
And for me, the point is this: don’t discount the power of serendipitous discovery.
I’m glad you worked this one out Andrew. An interesting point about the Causal vs Effectual reasoning argument when applied to entrepreneurs is that most entrepreneurs start their ventures through utilisation of effectuation processes then, at some point, switch to more traditional, causative strategies as the venture develops. It is rarely an either or thing. The critical point is that the processes of effectuation (sometimes combined with serendipitous input) is dominant in the early stages. A purely causative approach (taught in most business schools still) can often mean that opportunities are overlooked completely!
Hi Simon,
thank you for your comment.
I am glad I worked it out too
The goal-is-king school is great as far as it goes, but it is not the be-all and end-all.
A question for you: if most business schools teach “causitivism”, does this mean that people with MBAs are disadvantaged when it comes to agile entrepreneurism?
Cheers, Andrew