Though the following story has been quoted several times and may contain some lessons, I my opinion, lot of leadership skills, business models/ideas, corporate governance, administration etc are all ' context specific' both the approaches/activities and results/ outcomes are contextual / situational.
Each group had $5 and 2 hours to make the highest return on the initial money.
At the end, they'd give a short presentation on their strategy.
The results were fascinating...
Most of the groups followed a basic 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.
A few groups ignored the $5.
They thought up ways to make the most money in the 2 hours of allotted time:
• Made and sold reservations at hot restaurants.
• Refilled bike tires on campus for $1 each.
These groups made a better return on their initial $5.
The winning group took an entirely different approach.
They had three core realizations:
1. The $5 was nothing more than a distraction.
2. The 2 hours of time was not enough to make an attractive, outsized return with a mini-business (like selling restaurant reservations or filling bike tires).
3. The most valuable "asset" was actually the presentation time in front of a class of Stanford students.
Realizing the value of this hidden asset, they offered the presentation time to companies looking to recruit Stanford students.
They struck a deal to sell the time slot for $650, netting a monstrous return on the $5 of initial capital.
The losing groups thought in linear, logical terms and achieved a linear, logical outcome.
The winning group thought differently.
So, what can we learn from this story?
There are two types of problems:
1. Low-Stakes: Lower potential, linear rewards. Decisions are easily reversible.
2. High-Stakes: Higher potential, asymmetric rewards. Decisions are not easily reversible.
With low-stakes problems, given the reward potential is low and the decisions are easily reversible, we can use shortcuts and heuristics to choose our path. We can take a logical, linear approach.
With high-stakes problems, the high, asymmetric reward potential means we need to think differently. We want to take a creative, non-linear approach.
Three 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.
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?
• 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.
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.
If the story teaches us one thing, it's this:
Creative, non-linear, asymmetric thinking generates creative, non-linear, asymmetric outcomes.".
No comments:
Post a Comment