Saras Sarasvathy: How Great Entrepreneurs Think and Act Differently

Summary

Sora discusses their research on entrepreneurial experience, focusing on learning from those who have taken companies public. The study involved 45 successful entrepreneurs, revealing insights into creating the future through available resources rather than predicting it. The emphasis is on shared risks, team commitment, and the potential for new ventures to evolve beyond initial expectations. The analogy of cooking is used to illustrate the difference between planning and adapting to available resources, highlighting the importance of resilience and intelligent risk-taking in entrepreneurship.

Takeaways

• 😀 Finnish hospitality lives up to its reputation, making guests feel welcomed.
• 💡 The speaker transitioned from being an entrepreneur to focusing on research.
• 📊 The research involved studying 245 experienced entrepreneurs, with 45 participating.
• 🔄 Expert entrepreneurs often do not need to predict the future but create it using available resources.
• 🔍 The focus is on what can be achieved with current resources, not on having a brilliant idea to start.
• 📉 Entrepreneurs determine affordable loss levels before pursuing ventures.
• 👥 Building a team and getting others to commit resources is crucial in the early stages.
• 🚀 The future is shaped by collective actions and shared risks, leading to innovation.
• 🍳 Comparing entrepreneurship to cooking: causal (with a plan) vs. effectual (using available ingredients).
• 💪 Embracing failure as part of the process and fostering a culture where it's acceptable to start again.

Q & A

What is the main theme of the speaker's research?

The speaker's research focuses on understanding the experiences and lessons learned by entrepreneurs who have been in the field for 15 years or more, started multiple ventures, and taken at least one company public.

Why did the speaker choose to study entrepreneurs with such specific criteria?

The speaker believes that these entrepreneurs have gone through all possible experiences and can provide valuable insights that can be learned and taught.

How many people in the world fit the speaker's criteria for the study, and how many participated?

Only 245 people in the world fit the criteria, and 45 of them accepted to participate in the study.

What is the name the speaker came up with for their research, and what does it signify?

The speaker did not explicitly mention the name of the research in the transcript, but it is implied that the name signifies an inverse approach to what is typically taught to corporate managers.

What is the core idea behind the research's approach to creating the future?

The core idea is to create the future through actions that are already within one's control, using available resources, and setting goals based on those resources rather than trying to predict the future.

Why is it suggested that a brilliant idea is not necessary to start an opportunity?

The approach encourages using existing resources and understanding one's affordable loss levels to start opportunities, making it accessible without needing a groundbreaking idea.

What is the importance of talking to people and bringing a team together in the entrepreneurial process described?

Talking to people and forming a team is crucial for gaining commitment and 'putting skin in the game,' which helps in sharing risks and increasing the probability of creating something new.

How does the speaker relate the future to collective decisions and actions?

The speaker believes that the future is shaped by what people decide to do together, even if it deviates from the original individual destinations envisioned by each person.

What is the significance of the concept of 'cooking effectually' in the context of entrepreneurship?

Cooking effectually is used as a metaphor for entrepreneurship, where one starts with available resources and creates opportunities, rather than following a predetermined recipe or plan.

What is the speaker's view on failure in the context of entrepreneurship?

The speaker suggests that there are two kinds of failures: starting something and failing, and not starting at all, which is considered a greater failure as it precludes any possibility of success.

What is the one Finnish word the speaker knows, and how does it relate to the speech?

The speaker knows the Finnish word 'ketoset,' which is not directly related to the content of the speech but is used to end the speech on a light note.