Every year during year-end reviews, a fact emerges so clearly it’s almost impossible to ignore: in any industry, whether you can achieve deterministic results often depends on a few key factors—and the most important one is technological and cognitive leadership.

This kind of leadership cannot wait until everything is “ready” to begin. It can only be driven by a subset of people who start first.

This principle has been repeatedly validated in our team’s past experience.

A few years ago, we decided to have a small group of people invest effort in directions that, at the time, seemed unlikely to yield short-term results. Many were puzzled: Was it worth it? Wouldn’t it be a waste of time?

But as we entered this year’s planning cycle and looked back, the answer became crystal clear. The work that didn’t immediately translate into output back then has now become critical intellectual assets. Those who stumbled and learned early—their understanding of technical pathways, scenario assumptions, and systemic risks—became the foundation upon which we can move quickly in the new year. Without their early exploration, we might not even know where to start asking the right questions today.

In other words, letting some people start first is not so much a “strategy” as it is a survival logic for organizations. Without this kind of advance exploration, organizations are forced to “catch up” later—and catching up is almost always more costly than exploring.

Why does it have to be “some people”? Because exploratory work isn’t driven by processes—it’s sustained by intrinsic motivation. Those who lead the way share a common trait: they are energized by ambiguity, not intimidated by it. They build their own answers when there are none. They don’t wait for clarity—they actively create it. They are self-directed talent, running on internal conviction rather than external structure.

That’s why, when they dive into exploration, what the organization sees as a short-term “blank period” is actually a future “energy reserve.” Amazon’s AWS, Google’s Gmail, Huawei’s “Blue Army” mechanism—they all follow the same pattern: organizations need to give some people enough space to experiment, collide, and grow before there’s any visible value. By the time that value is needed, they’ve already developed a depth that others can’t catch up with in a short time.

Of course, letting some people start first isn’t some “nice but expensive” luxury—it’s deeply pragmatic. It allows a team to maintain stable operations today while building competitive capacity for tomorrow. Exploratory projects may seem like bets on the future, but their positive externalities start showing up immediately: the team becomes more vibrant simply by seeing others try new things; the organization becomes more resilient as knowledge accumulates; individuals grow faster by confronting uncertainty head-on.

From a long-term perspective, the biggest risk is never “trial and error”—it’s “staying still.” The large companies that were left behind by their eras all shared one trait: they relied too heavily on existing businesses and neglected exploration of new directions, losing their edge on the next curve. In contrast, organizations that continuously let some people move first always find an upward path amid change.

“Start first” sounds like a call to action, but its real meaning goes much deeper than action alone. It means an organization is willing to admit that the future is unpredictable, while also believing that through distributed, continuous exploration, the future can be shaped. It’s a form of organizational self-evolution—and a culture: when faced with the unknown, rather than waiting for safety, it’s better to take the first step.

When some people start first, the organization gains a handle on the future. When the organization is willing to do this, it develops the ability to not be left behind by the times.

And every time we let some people move first, we are essentially paving a new path for the entire team.