‘No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.’  (Voltaire)

‘Uncertainty is the normal state.’ (Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead)

Voltaire’s comment reflects a view apparently held by many others. People have long wished to solve the problem of knowing what is going to happen in the future. The early methods they used included things like astrology, divination and reading the entrails of slaughtered animals – techniques which might now be supposed to lie in the realm of superstition. However science then appeared to offer more reliable methods and Newton in particular was hailed for the way his analysis enabled us to predict with clock-like accuracy the future positions of the planets – which had before seemed to move more or less at random.

Examples such as this led us to think that, with enough intelligent effort, we should be able to identify the mechanisms behind events and thus work out how things will behave. As a result we have come to view the future deterministically and to expect experts to be able to tell us what is going to happen. But Sir Karl Popper declared that viewing systems like clocks this way was a fallacy and instead most things are inherently unpredictable like clouds[i].

Although determinism may have come from physics, it has been noted that physics has subsequently acknowledged uncertainty, although it is suggested the social sciences have not. Aspects of this deterministic view of the future are clearly still found in business where it is generally assumed that reliable future projections can and should be made. Supposed experts such as economists and marker researchers are often expected to provide predictions upon which plans can reliably be based. Indeed it is frequently accepted that this is the proper approach with the result that business plans are widely advocated as the essential business start-up tool.

But business in not an exception to Popper’s observation. In it, as in many other areas of life, the reality is that the future is not predetermined and the unexpected often happens. Therefore, if that is the case, how should entrepreneurs (and businesses) try to address future uncertainty? To help to explore that dilemma this paper contrasts two main options:

• The often preferred approach which seeks to reduce uncertainty by forecasting and planning, using ‘left-brained’ logic and analysis.
• The alternative way which seeks to live with, and to benefit from, uncertainty by using ideas derived from exploration[ii], effectuation[iii], antifragility[iv] and ‘trial and error’.

The paper examines the two approaches and considers their rationales and potential effectiveness. It suggests that forecasting and planning has many drawbacks and is often not the best way to operate in uncertain conditions. Nevertheless it is often advocated and its thinking seems to have been adopted as the default philosophy for business. Therefore if, as has been suggested, uncertainty is the norm, do we need instead to explain, adopt, advocate and/or teach a different way of thinking?

Read the full paper ‘Facing uncertainty: An entrepreneurial view of the future?‘ published in Journal of Management & Organization

[i][i] Popper Sir Karl, (1973), ‘Of Clouds and Clocks: an approach to the problem of rationality and the freedom of man’, In Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach

[ii] Bridge S. and Hegarty C., (2013), Beyond the Business Plan – 10 Principles for New Venture Explorers, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan)

[iii] Sarasvathy S., (2008), Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Experience, (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)

[iv] Taleb N. N., (2013), Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder, (London: Penguin)