Explore or Execute?
#123 - When to Perfect What You Have—And When to Take a Risk on the Future
Hello friends! Hope you had a great week.
Lately, I’ve been thinking about the tension between exploring new opportunities and executing on what already works. This is one of those fundamental dilemmas that exists everywhere—from startups deciding between expanding into new markets or doubling down on what’s working, to personal decisions like whether to switch careers or go all-in on a chosen path.
A while ago, I came across this post by Jason Cohen, and I haven’t been able to get it out of my head. He lays out a simple but powerful framework:
• Exploration is about trying new things, testing hypotheses, and searching for the next big breakthrough. It’s the startup founder experimenting with different business models, the scientist pursuing a new line of research, or the young professional moving across industries to find the right fit.
• Execution is about optimizing what you already know works, improving efficiency, and scaling. It’s the company that has found product-market fit and is now focused on operational excellence, the athlete refining their technique, or the professional who has committed to mastery in a single field.
Both are essential. The problem? They compete for time, resources, and attention.
A company that spends too much time exploring without executing will feel directionless. On the other hand, a company that focuses exclusively on execution risks missing the next wave of innovation.
This tension isn’t just something that applies to companies. It’s also a deeply personal question. Should you specialize early or try many things before settling? Should you invest all your time in what’s working, or should you experiment with something new?
What’s Actually Happening in an Explore-Execute Tradeoff?
At first glance, it seems obvious that we need both exploration and execution. But the challenge is about deciding when to do what.
The problem is that exploration is expensive. It requires time, uncertainty, and failure. It’s inefficient by definition. When you’re exploring, most of what you try won’t work, and you have no guarantee that you’ll find anything better than what you already have. It feels chaotic because it is chaotic.
Execution, on the other hand, feels productive. It’s predictable. You know that if you keep refining a working system, you’ll get results. That’s why organizations love execution: it provides structure, clear metrics, and tangible outcomes.
The danger is that execution can become a trap. A company (or a person) that only focuses on execution is optimizing for the short term—exploiting what already works—at the risk of missing the next wave of opportunity.
This tension is known as the exploration-exploitation dilemma, a concept introduced by James March in 1991. His research on organizations showed that companies are constantly forced to choose between investing in new knowledge (exploration) and capitalizing on existing knowledge (execution). The right balance leads to long-term success, while overcommitting to one side or the other can lead to stagnation or chaos.
You can see this tradeoff play out in every field:
• In business strategy: Google famously follows the 70/20/10 rule—70% of resources go toward core products (execution), 20% into adjacent innovations, and 10% into moonshots (exploration). This ensures they remain dominant in their core business while still taking bets on future opportunities.
• In sports: Rafael Nadal built his career on executing a winning formula—grinding baseline play, unmatched endurance, relentless discipline. Meanwhile, Roger Federer explored and reinvented his game multiple times, adding new dimensions like a more aggressive net game later in his career.
• In investing: Venture capital firms operate on an extreme explore-execute model. They explore by funding dozens of high-risk startups, expecting most to fail, but then execute hard on scaling the winners.
The best companies, athletes, and investors don’t pick one or the other—they cycle between the two at the right times. They explore when the potential upside of a new idea justifies the risk and execute when they’ve found something worth doubling down on.
The challenge, of course, is knowing when to switch modes.
The Risks of Over-Exploration and Over-Execution
It’s easy to assume that the right balance between exploration and execution is somewhere in the middle. In reality, most people and companies don’t consciously balance the two—they default to one mode and get stuck there. Some endlessly chase new ideas but never build anything meaningful. Others double down on what’s working, only to realize too late that the world has changed.
But what happens when you take the wrong decision?
The Dangers of Over-Exploration
Over-exploration is seductive. It feels exciting. There’s always the promise that the next idea, the next strategy, or the next opportunity will be the one that finally works.
The problem is that constant exploration prevents depth. Without sustained effort in one direction, nothing compounds.
• Shiny Object Syndrome – The most obvious failure mode of over-exploration is jumping from one idea to another without ever going deep. This is common in startups that pivot every few months, burning through cash without building real traction. Founders justify it as “staying agile,” but what they’re really doing is avoiding the hard, boring work of execution. I have seen this in many experiences in my career, and it’s really hard to diagnose when you’re living it.
• No Competitive Edge – If you’re always testing new things but never executing deeply enough to refine and perfect them, you never build a moat. Many media companies fell into this trap when digital advertising took off. They experimented with every new platform—blogs, social media, video—but because they never fully committed to any of them, they got overtaken by companies that did.
• Analysis Paralysis – Exploration is supposed to lead to insight, but in excess, it can lead to indecision. Think of an entrepreneur who spends years researching industries, analyzing markets, and brainstorming business models—without ever actually starting anything.
Of course, the opposite problem exists as well.
The Dangers of Over-Execution
Over-execution feels safe. It’s predictable. If something is working, it seems logical to double down and optimize it further. The problem is that what works today won’t necessarily work tomorrow.
• The Local Maximum Problem – When you focus too much on optimizing what already works, you might get stuck improving something that is fundamentally limited. Imagine a taxi company in 2010 trying to maximize efficiency by optimizing dispatching systems—right before Uber came along and made the entire model obsolete.
• Complacency and Disruption – The most successful companies often fall into this trap. They build something great, dominate the market, and then stop exploring new possibilities. Blockbuster had perfected the in-store video rental business, while Netflix was exploring streaming. By the time Blockbuster reacted, it was too late.
• The Sunk Cost Fallacy – The deeper you go into execution, the harder it is to switch gears. If you’ve spent 10 years mastering a skill that’s becoming obsolete, it’s difficult to walk away. If you’ve spent billions optimizing a product that’s about to be disrupted, you’ll hesitate to abandon it.
A classic example is BlackBerry. They had perfected the keyboard-based smartphone, refining it year after year. Meanwhile, Apple was exploring touchscreens. BlackBerry kept executing on what worked—right up until the moment it didn’t.
At a personal level, you see this with professionals who stay in the same job or industry for decades, never updating their skill set. They execute flawlessly—until the industry shifts and they find themselves unemployable.
The Real Danger: Not Knowing Which Mode You’re In
The real, as I read and think more about this, is really failing to realize which mode you need more of at any given moment.
Many struggling startups aren’t actually exploring—they’re just thrashing around. They think they’re testing different models, but in reality, they’re just avoiding commitment. Conversely, many established businesses aren’t really executing—they’re just repeating the same playbook out of habit.
Knowing when to shift gears is the difference between being Blockbuster or Netflix, Yahoo or Google, BlackBerry or Apple.
The question is: how do you actually get the balance right?
The additional complexity in this evaluation is also that not all industries require the same balance between exploration and execution.
Some fields change rapidly, forcing companies and individuals to stay in constant exploration mode, while others move slowly, rewarding deep execution and incremental improvements.
A good rule of thumb is:
• Fast-changing industries demand more exploration. These are fields where technology, consumer behavior, or business models shift frequently. If you don’t explore, you risk being left behind.
• Slow-moving industries reward execution. These are industries where best practices remain stable for long periods, meaning depth, mastery, and operational efficiency matter more than chasing the next big thing.
Consider how different industries operate:
• Fast industries: Technology, AI, digital marketing, entertainment, and venture capital. In these fields, what worked five years ago may already be obsolete. Execution still matters, but without ongoing exploration, you’ll quickly lose your edge.
• Slow industries: Manufacturing, law, accounting, infrastructure, and healthcare. These industries evolve gradually, meaning those who execute well can stay dominant for decades with only occasional adaptations.
Even within the same field, there can be both fast and slow segments. For example:
• In finance, high-frequency trading firms operate in an ultra-fast environment, where constant exploration of new algorithms is necessary. Meanwhile, private equity operates in a slower space, where deep execution and operational efficiency matter more.
• In healthcare, cutting-edge biotech startups need to explore constantly, but established pharmaceutical companies can focus more on optimizing existing drug pipelines.
If you’re working in a fast-moving industry, failing to explore is dangerous. But if you’re in a slow-moving one, too much exploration can be a distraction. The trick is knowing the speed of your environment and adjusting accordingly.
The Barbell Strategy: A Smarter Way to Balance Both
If balancing exploration and execution is so critical, why do so many companies and individuals get it wrong?
One reason is that we assume the right approach is to split our time evenly between the two. A little bit of exploration, a little bit of execution—sounds reasonable, right? But in practice, this middle-ground strategy tends to fail. Companies that try to explore and execute simultaneously often do neither well. They end up being too cautious in their exploration and too distracted in their execution.
As I have said in previous posts, I am a huge fan of Nassim Taleb books. And one of the key concepts I have taken away for me is his barbell strategy.
The idea behind the barbell strategy is simple: instead of balancing exploration and execution evenly, you go to extremes.
• On one side of the barbell, you execute relentlessly in areas where you have high certainty and strong competitive advantages. This is the core of your business, career, or skillset—the thing you can count on.
• On the other side, you explore aggressively in high-risk, high-reward areas where the upside is massive but the failure rate is high.
The key is that you don’t waste time in the middle. You’re not constantly making small tweaks to what’s working while also dabbling in exploratory projects. You commit fully to both ends of the spectrum.
Why This Works Better Than the Middle-Ground Approach
The reason the barbell strategy works is that it protects you from the worst-case scenario while still allowing for upside.
• If your high-risk exploration fails? No big deal—you’ve only allocated a small portion of your resources to it.
• If your high-certainty execution starts to become obsolete? No problem—you’ve already been placing bets on the next wave.
It also helps with mental clarity. Instead of constantly switching between exploration and execution, you know exactly when you’re in each mode. When you’re executing, you don’t second-guess or get distracted. When you’re exploring, you’re fully open to new possibilities without the pressure of immediate results.
Why Most People Resist the Barbell Strategy
If this approach works so well, why don’t more people and companies use it?
The problem is psychological discomfort. Most people like the idea of “balance” because it feels safer. Committing fully to exploration feels reckless, and committing fully to execution feels restrictive. The middle ground feels like a hedge—but in reality, it’s often the worst of both worlds.
For companies, this plays out when they try to innovate too cautiously. They want new ideas, but they also want guaranteed results. The result? Corporate “innovation labs” that produce endless reports and pilot programs but never ship anything meaningful.
For individuals, the same hesitation applies. If you’ve been executing on a stable career path for 10 years, it’s terrifying to suddenly carve out time for high-risk exploration. What if it doesn’t lead anywhere? What if you waste time? The fear of failure prevents many from taking the necessary bets that keep them relevant in the long run.
The irony is that the barbell strategy is actually lower risk than the middle-ground approach. It ensures that you’re never fully exposed to disruption while still keeping you in the game for major breakthroughs.
The Pattern of High Performers
Looking at the most successful people and companies, you’ll notice a pattern. They don’t just explore randomly, nor do they blindly execute forever. Instead, they follow a predictable cycle:
1. Early on, they explore aggressively. They test multiple directions, industries, strategies, and ideas. They’re looking for high-potential opportunities before committing.
2. Once they find a promising path, they execute hard. They go all-in, optimize relentlessly, and extract as much value as possible from what’s working.
3. As they reach a plateau, they reintroduce exploration. They hedge against future disruptions, start experimenting again, and look for the next wave of opportunity.
This cycle repeats itself at different levels. Companies do this over decades. Individuals do it throughout their careers. Even within a single project, there’s an initial phase of exploration before execution takes over.
So, where are you right now? Are you stuck in execution, optimizing something that’s already peaked? Or are you lost in exploration, constantly testing but never committing?
Maybe it’s time to switch gears!
Wish you a great weekend,
Giovanni
Book in a Tweet
Fascinating story about how the most innovative company in the world (General Electric) lost its way.
