Motley Fool Money - Harvard's Judgment Professor: The Curse of Optionality, and the One Habit That Builds Better Judgment

Episode Date: September 20, 2026

Why do the most credentialed people on earth — the ones who checked every box, Stanford, Goldman, KKR, Harvard Business School — end up making the safest, most probable choices of their lives? In Part 2 of his conversation with Motley Fool's Rachel Warren, Reza Satchu breaks down his three-word framework for spotting real conviction versus hype (authenticity, momentum, inevitability), why capital allocation is the sharpest test of a CEO's judgment, his biggest regret as a founder (waiting too long to fire people), and the "curse of optionality" that keeps talented people from ever committing to anything. He closes with the one small, repeatable habit he wants every investor and founder to build to train their own judgment muscle.  Host: Rachel Warren  Guest: Reza Satchu  Producers: Dennis Golin, Lauren Budabin  Disclosure: Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. The Motley Fool and its affiliates (collectively, “TMF”) do not endorse, recommend, or verify the accuracy or completeness of the statements made within advertisements. TMF is not involved in the offer, sale, or solicitation of any securities advertised herein and makes no representations regarding the suitability, or risks associated with any investment opportunity presented. Investors should conduct their own due diligence and consult with legal, tax, and financial advisors before making any investment decisions. TMF assumes no responsibility for any losses or damages arising from this advertisement. We’re committed to transparency: All personal opinions in advertisements from Fools are their own. The product advertised in this episode was loaned to TMF and was returned after a test period or the product advertised in this episode was purchased by TMF. Advertiser has paid for the sponsorship of this episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My biggest mistakes have been waiting too long to fire people. Like, no question. And it's not just what you think. It's not just that that person is underperforming, and you can replace that person with a higher performer. There's something much more sinister when a founder or leader accepts underperformance, which is that it massively negatively impacts the entire culture.

That was Reza Sotu, Harvard Business School's Senior Lecturer and six-time founder on the hardest lesson of his career. I'm Motley full analyst Rachel Warren. Last week in part one, Reza and I covered why judgment beats intellect in the age of AI, whether judgment can be taught, and his billion-dollar walkaway deal in student housing. This week in part two, we'll get into what it actually takes to raise capital of that fooling yourself, why capital allocation is the sharpest test of a CEO's judgment, a curse of optionality, and the single habit that Reza wants every investor to build to train their own judgment muscle. We hope you enjoy.

You are both a serial entrepreneur as well as, you know, founder, investor. What are some of the hardest lessons you've learned as a founder? So I will tell you, and this is, it's not even close. And it's a harsh thing to say, but it's just my truth, which is my biggest mistakes have been waiting too long to fire people. Like, no question. And it's not just what you think. It's not just that that person is underperforming,

and you could replace that person with a higher performer. There's something much more sinister when a founder or leader accepts underperformance, which is that it massively negatively impacts the entire culture. Okay, which is suddenly people are like, well, he's not holding everyone at the same standard. Or, well, you know, so I, So I'd say to you that, but of course, firing someone is a hard thing to do, right?

Like, you don't want to do it, right? Like, I mean, every time I fire someone, I remember the look in their eyes. I remember thinking about their family. I remember the part I would have played in it, that I misjudged the role or the hire or whatever it may be. So it's something that's very painful, but is so necessary. And the cost of not doing it and waiting is far greater than I think most people, calculated to be. So certainly if I think about my greatest mistakes, it's been

waiting too long, waiting for perfect information to make an obvious decision when it comes to firing, like not wanting to deal with the difficulty of firing someone. And as I said, it's not just the singular person's performance, it's the cultural impact of that. And so, look, this obviously falls under a broader bucket which is like human beings have an instinct to wait for too much information before they make a decision. Right.

I think when it comes to firing, I'd say my personal view is I've waited too long on those. And oftentimes I've waited too long to pull the trigger on people who on paper looked perfect, right? Like meaning they looked great on paper. And so you just were like, okay, they're going to figure this out. And, you know, oftentimes, look, my world is founding businesses, but I've hired lots of people from larger organizations. Not always, but often they've had a very hard time working in a more resource-constrained environment. Interesting. You know, going back to this idea of storytelling, it's obviously vital for raising capital,

but it can be a bit dangerous in some cases if leaders or company leaders starts believing their own hype. So how do you assess whether a leader possesses, say, the intellectual honesty to separate their grand vision from a current operational reality, whether that's the business? business, the industry, you know, both. So let me take both sides of it. Let me sort of say, what does it take to raise capital? Okay. Like, what are the traits that it takes? And how do you as an investor make sure that you're not being hoodwinked by it? Okay. So let me, and I play both side. I mean, I hope I haven't hoodwinked anyone, but I've seen both sides of it. Okay. So let's just say, I have three words I use, and this is specifically for founders, but I think You can extrapolate it for others as to when you're raising capital, what you need.

So the first thing you need is authenticity. No one's going to give you their money if they don't trust you, okay? Meaning you can't pretend to be someone else. You need to be authentic, okay? Two is you need to have momentum. There needs to be things that are happening fast and people can see that there's action and you're getting customers or whatever it may be. The third one is perhaps the most important and the hardest,

especially for a founder, is you need to convey a sense of inevitability. Okay. So authenticity, momentum, and inevitability. So what does inevitability mean? Inevitability is not arrogance. What inevitability means is that you believe in your heart that this business is going to fly with or without whoever you are pitching, okay? Meaning you have a mindset, which is not that you are begging for money,

but a mindset that you are the prize and that you're giving your investor an opportunity to make money, okay? And that effectively this is inevitable, okay? Okay, but you can, now to your question, you can imagine why that could lead to, you know, someone pitching something that that framework can lead to nefarious behavior. Okay. So, so what I say, what I, what I'm always looking for, so I do think leaders should have those three traits, meaning I do think if you're going to ask people for money, you better

believe that it's going to happen. If you haven't convinced yourself, that's a problem. Okay. So what I'm looking for is a sense of humility within that inevitability framework. And also, what I love, what I love seeing is founders, leaders addressing the inevitable negatives in their business, like the inevitable risks. And starting with that.

Like, I love it when a founder are leaders. And you don't lose any inevitability when you do that, frankly. because every business has risks associated with it. And what you get as a founder is you get to actually articulate the narrative around that risk. So from my perspective, I am always looking for someone because when I get pitched and it's all, you know, sunshine and roses, I'm just like, this is ridiculous, okay? But if I'm getting pitched by someone who, yes, believes it's inevitable, but is also talking about all the competitive threats and the technological issues and how they're going to deal with it and what

their plan is, knowing that it might change, that to me is a much more authentic proposition, and for me, feels much more believable because they know what the issues are. So just tell me what the issues are, and let's figure out how you're going to solve them, because there's no business without issues. So I think, I think, I don't want to make it as trite as lead with the bad news. I would just say that I do respect leaders who articulate in a very clear manner, the inevitable risks that they're facing and take the opportunity to address them

and have a real conversation about it. Yeah, I think it was Warren Buffett who once said that capital allocation is a CEO's most important job. When you look at a leadership teams or a leader's capital allocation industry, history, what is a pattern that maybe tells you they're playing a long-term game

rather than just managing short-term expectations? Yeah, so look, I think it's funny, right, because capital allocation at the core is the sharp edge of judgment, meaning that is where judgment is most shown by a CEO, right? So meaning when we talk about how you evaluate it, what you just identified is how is it demonstrated from a CEO's perspective? There's no better way for a CEO, for you to evaluate a CEO's judgment than to see the capital allocation decisions they've made.

Okay. So I think you've hit on exactly the point as to how we evaluate. Like what is the metric we should look at if we wanted to sort of evaluate judgment for a CEO? It's really these decisions around capital allocation. It's probably the most important decision. And so I think your point is exactly the right one, which is there has to be a time frame that is not about keeping my job for the next quarter or hitting short-term results, but much more about how to actually build a business that long-term is going to be a great

compounder of capital for the CEO and for his or her investors. And so I think the way to look at it is, I mean, there's no better way to evaluate judgment than to look at previous judgments that they've made. So I think, I think the way to look at it at a Rachel is to say, okay, I would ask the question. Tell me what the three most consequential capital allocation decisions that you made that worked and the three that didn't work. And, you know, I think through that lens, you would quickly understand are they thinking about capital allocation from a short-term perspective or a long-term perspective, right? because if they're suddenly talking about a capital allocation decision that, you know, was measured in months rather than years, that tells you something. But I also think that the learnings that they can convey from the ones that didn't work out are also critically important. And so, and I think the thing that you're hitting on, which I think is very important, is what, let them answer it in a way where they're evaluating the time horizon.

And so, you know, what I'd be looking for is what time horizon are they looking for to measure these decisions? Yeah. In your own ventures, how have you balanced the tension between conserving cash and aggressively deploying capital into growth? Yeah. I mean, look, it's such a, it's such a tension point. And, you know, I'll give you an example of a business where, okay, so we talked about the student housing business. So the student housing business was one where when we had that offer for a billion one and we sold it for a billion. we actually made about $300 million of acquisitions in that year, okay, which ultimately was well worth it because we generated an additional $400 million of equity value as a whole, okay? But we needed to deploy capital quickly in that year to get to that valuation. So that's an example of where we made the right call and we decided to do it. And there was a number of, you know, there were international students that were coming in.

There was still a spread between student housing cap rates and multi-futable. family that we thought was going to compress. There was a massive institutionalization of the student housing market with lots of pension funds, Brookfield, CPP, TAMASIC coming in. So there were lots of tailwinds that we thought were going to be helpful to us over the next year or so. Okay. Let's take another story. So a business that I had founded beforehand with my brother, actually, was a storage business, actually, and Kevin Illiri, the three of us founded it, a storage business. And there, look, we did very well. I mean, we sold the business for $110 million in 2007.

We started it in 2003. But I would tell you, we made a massive mistake, okay? We should have kept deploying capital. Like, we had a brilliant idea, right? We were the first people to do sort of multi-story urban, high household income-focused storage. This was in Canada. No one was doing it. Everyone was doing sort of single-story in the middle of no.

nowhere and we had this idea. And we should have tripled down. Like we should this should have been a billion dollar business, but we made an accurate decision, which was we thought that we should have taken the money off the table as opposed to deploying more capital. So I think what I'd say, Rachel, when I got to student housing, I was like, I am not going to make that mistake again. Like I'm going to learn from that mistake and and really think hard about this. But I think this is where there's no science. It's, it's really a judgment call around all the various issues. So storage is an example of one where we made a judgment that I would say is flawed. I mean, we did fine.

I think we made four or five times our money, but we could have made 20 or 30 times in that business. That should have been a billion dollar business. But we learned, and in student housing, I think we calibrated the risk appropriately. Now, like in anything in life, it could have gone the other way, but it was the right decision based on the factors of time. You just found out that your sales team is at risk of missing quota. Don't panic. Just ask Rippling AI. Since it's built on your real-time people and business data,

Rippling AI can pull metrics from Rippling and Salesforce into a meeting-ready dashboard showing quota attainment, headcount plan, and monthly revenue to quota by region. In seconds, you'll see exactly what's behind your quota risk and fix it before it's missed. Question answered, action taken, crisis averted. When you have critical business questions that need answers, don't just file a ticket and wait weeks for an outdated report.

Describe what you need and have Rippling AI build it instantly from your live people and business data, whether it's a dashboard with detailed charts or automated workflows with the right triggers, conditions, and approvals. Ready to rule your business? Head to rippling.aI slash fool to get the only AI built to give you full visibility and take complex actions across your entire organization. That's r-i-p-p-l-i-n-g.a-i-slash-O-O-O-L. Sign up for exclusive access today, rippling.a-I-S-Fool. New from Nespresso. Blend wellness into your coffee routine with the coffee plus range, infused with functional benefits.

Choose the coffee you love with added B vitamins, like coffee plus B12 to help support immune function, and coffee plus B6 to keep your day moving. Or go with the flow and choose ginseng delight. Our new double espresso with ginseng extract. Whatever lies ahead, don't change your morning. Let your morning change you. Discover coffee plus on nispresso.com. You know, there was an HBS case study session you did with Tim Ferriss where you focused on the curse of optionality.

Yeah, yeah. And I wanted to ask you a bit about that. This idea that having too many paths forward can cause analysis paralysis. Oh, yeah. So, Rachel, so I, look, I talk a lot about this in my podcast, the founder mindset, where, you know, you invariably see the folks on my podcast, whether it's everyone from, you know, Reese Witherspoon to Mark Cuban to Michelle Zatlin, what you see is. ultimately the impact that they've been able to have, the impact that, you know, every human being wants to have, has come about because they have committed to a certain path, okay? And they've shut off a bunch of options. So I started thinking a lot about the curse of optionality because here at Harvard, you have these students who collect gold stars for a living. Like literally, you know, they've gone to, you know, Stanford undergrad, they worked at Goldman Sachs, they then go to KKR, then they come to HBS. Like literally, literally,

every box is checked, okay? And many of them, you meet them and you're like, wow, I can't believe you were born to this single mother in Birmingham, Alabama, or you were born in this family in India, wherever it is, and you managed to get to Harvard Business School. The trajectory was so steep. It was so improbable. And then you come to a school like this and you do entirely probable things. You go take a job at McKinsey or you go take a job at Goldman. Like, you take these jobs that are entirely available to our students. And of course, the reason that's happening is because they're just preserving options. Okay? They're preserving options. And so because they're like, well, we'll commit to something in the future. And this just allows me to learn more, see different things. And at some point in

my life, I will commit to the thing that I really want to do. I mean, it actually raises a much broader societal point, Rachel, and I'm actually writing a book about this, which is, I think society, there is a massive existential risk to our society, which is that people view commitment as a sacrifice and not as a superpower. Okay. So what you're seeing is that forms of commitment are declining dramatically across all of our lives, right? So there's a decline in marriage, there's decline in people having kids, there's a decline in home ownership, there's decline in people going to church. Whatever the thing is that people used to commit to is declining and it's been replaced by options. Okay. most acutely, you swipe left, you swipe right. You know, there's lots of options at all times, right? And my argument to you is that at the end of your life, and there have been lots of studies. In fact, Harvard did a study, unfortunately, it's just of men, but they had 800 men. It's the longest longitudinal study of happiness over the past 60 years.

They tracked 400 men who graduated Harvard in the 1930s, 40s, 60 years ago. No, I guess it would be the 60s, and 400 men who were in the inner city. Okay, they're now 550 of them are still alive in their 80s, and they said, to what do you attribute your contentment? And by a long shot, the thing that came up was, did I have long-term enduring relationships? Now, the thing about long-term enduring relationships is they all go through crises, okay, and it takes commitment. And so commitment is sort of this superpower, I believe. And it's the same thing with this curse of optionality, which is around, you know, founding, which is, I think, everyone should be a founder.

Like everyone should have a founder mindset in the age of AI. Like I really believe that. Like I think of everyone, because it's judgment that we're trying to build and where judgment matters most is when you're actually stepping into the arena, cutting off other options

and seeing what you're truly capable of when you commit. And so I think optionality, look, every option has value, but what's being massively underpriced in this world is what commitment does, which is, you know, and what I say about commitment, Rachel, is it's not just the obvious thing,

which is you learn what you're, capable of when you truly commit to something to a path. There's a second order thing that happens, and I call it magic, okay? And the magic happens when people commit to you precisely because you've committed. So I can't tell you how many times I've experienced this, where the first investor shows up, the first customer shows up, my first employee shows up precisely because they see the commitment from you. And so it's a magical thing, right? And so what I try to teach, at the core is how do you commit to a thing in the face of massive options? Because I think it's through that commitment that you will have the impact that you most want to have.

Something that I've seen you do on your podcast, the founder mindset, is asking company founders and leaders to revisit the moments of doubt that terrify them. So I've got to turn that around and ask you, you know, in your journey building, you know, six companies, what is the most terrifying decision that you had to execute before you knew it would work. Yeah. Okay. So, so my wife has a joke where she says, Rays, if things are too calm, you blow things up. Like, I actually, like, it's, I think it's, I'm not like, it's a pathology or something. But I will say to you that I actually want a really uncomfortable uncertain life. Like, like, I actually crave uncertainty and risk, okay? Not because I want to jump off a cliff, but because I'm not arrogant

enough to believe that I can have the impact I want to have without taking risk, right? Like the equivalent of having real impact and not taking risk is investing in a bunch of T-bills and getting S&P 500 returns. It doesn't happen, okay? So I want to just start with the proposition that I think a life of certainty and a life without risk is in many ways quite inconsequential, okay? Meaning, I think we need to reframe how we think about risk and uncertainty and adversity. It is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Okay, it is where learning really lies because that's where judgment is built. Okay. So I just want to start with that, just framework, which is I don't view the crises or the adversity as, I mean, in the moment, maybe they feel bad, but I know they're part of the learning and the journey to have the, to be able to generate the, the resources that I want to have, the confidence, credibility, et cetera, to have the impact that I want. So I start with a mindset, which is this is going to happen. It's good. Like there will be adversity.

There will be crisis. And the question is, can I stay committed? You know, how can I respond in these moments? Okay. But look, there's no question. There are moments where there is complete terror. Okay. And so, and I don't know if terror is the right word.

But what I'd say is, like, I, as a founder, this idea that you're ever certain about anything is just not true. Okay, like meaning these decisions are like 5149, 60, 40. They're not 991, okay? And so, but what you realize is you have a right to recover and even in sort of failure, there's real, but okay, you know, the hardest decision I made was a business that I started that ultimately failed. And, you know, I had been investing personally in a bunch of hedge funds.

So, you know, I was an investor in Persian Square, loan pined, some very fancy hedge funds. And I met a fellow who was an academic who basically was talking about how the best way to evaluate hedge funds and it sort of married up with my own instinct. So we created a company, constellation. We very quickly raised a few hundred million dollars to invest in the world's best hedge fund managers. Okay. And I made a very difficult decision during the crisis to give back the capital to my investors before we had a. any meaningful redemptions. And I did that because I was very concerned about the stability of our partnership,

right? And I was worried about our scale, whether we could get. Now, it turned out to be the right decision, okay? And I think my investors appreciated it. But you can imagine, from my perspective, it was an incredibly difficult decision because it was a public failure. Okay. Now, what I'll tell you about failure is it turns out, look, I'll tell you one last thing

on failure, which not only do I think we as a human being sort of, overestimate how bad failure is. But I'd also say the market values people who actually exercise judgment and fail. So quickly, one of my colleagues at Harvard did a study where they looked at 5 million data points. And they only looked at two types of people, people who went and did traditional paths and people who found it and failed. Okay.

So people who went to McKinsey, Goldman, Google, Amazon, whatever, others who founded and failed. Forget about founded and succeeded. And then they grouped them in terms of similar prior historical, educational, and professional experience. And what they found was the failed founders reentered the workforce with two and a half years of seniority above the traditional folks. Wow.

So think what that tells you. What that tells you is the market values their judgment even though it was flawed. They valued the fact that they were in the arena, making decisions, feeling the consequences of it, calibrating risk, however flawed, such that they came back into the traditional world with two and a half years of seniority. And it makes sense to me because even if you're getting it wrong, you're building judgment. You're seeing what is wrong. So I think, you know, these are important sort of moments and certainly important educational objectives. New from Nespresso. Blend wellness into your coffee routine with a coffee plus range,

infused with functional benefits. Choose the coffee you love with added B vitamins, like coffee plus B12 to help support immune function, and coffee plus B6 to keep your day moving. Or go with the flow and choose ginseng delight. Our new double espresso with ginseng extract. Whatever lies ahead, don't change your morning. Let your morning change you.

Discover coffee plus on espresso.com. You know, something that you've written and talked about is that what looks inevitable in hindsight usually look completely irrational in real time. Because maybe the market signal hadn't formed. So I wonder, how can one tell the difference between, say, a management team making a brilliant, irrational but correct bet versus one that might be drifting off course? So it's interesting because, of course, I see it from the framework of a founder, right? Like, I almost, inevitably, when you think about a founder, right, effectively what a founder is doing is they're imagining a world that doesn't exist today.

Okay. And they're trying to convince you of that world. And almost everyone can't see it. And it's logical that they can't see it because at least if everyone could see it, the opportunity wouldn't be there, right? So the fact that they can't see it is why the opportunity is so large. But it often takes one person and first investor, first customer, first employee to, I say, behave almost irrationally, right?

like to actually be the first person to come and join. And so the question is why do they do that? Why does someone, how do you differentiate between a founder or CEO who's, you know, sort of a snake oil person, salesperson, versus someone who actually can't see something that you can't see? And I think, again, it just goes to this, you know, what I look for is sort of integrity, humility, and then also what I'd call sort of this X factor, which is you could imagine this person if they're right, being really right, like being really right. like being really right.

Like they have something about them where if they are either some combination of lucky and or good, this could have 100 X outcome, right? And it's worth taking a shot. And so I think in the public context, it's so interesting because in some senses, you know, you'd say look at their previous judgments

to see how they turned out. But we also know that we're living in such a different world now where things are changing so quickly that people have to come up with new frameworks immediately. And so, so again, I go back to, you know, I'm much, yes, I want you to paint me a vision and I want to be excited about the vision, but what I really want to do is make sure you tell me what all the risks are and that you articulate them and tell me how you're going to defend against them in a way that makes

real sense to me. As a founder, do you think you have learned more from your successes or from failures? Oh, that's a great question. You know, it's funny. I think as a founder, you almost invariably have to be an optimist, okay, because you have to believe in things that others don't believe in. So I focus much more on how things can go right than how things can go wrong, okay? Because if you focus on how things can go wrong, you will never build anything. Because almost invariably as a founder, you are always competing with people. that have more resources than you do. More information, more expertise.

You know, one of my professors defines, and I think it's a great way to define entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is a relentless pursuit of opportunity without regard to resources currently controlled. That second half is the critical part, Rachel, right? Everyone knows you've got to be relentless. But the hardest part about being a founder is you've got to do it without regard

to resources currently controlled. Okay. So what that means is you are not resource constrained. you're purely opportunity-driven. Okay? So what I'd say to you is to answer your question, I think I remember my failures. I think a lot about them.

I hope I've learned from them. But I'm in this game to celebrate my successes, like meaning that or my team successes, you know? And so here's what I'd say. I think I've learned a lot from my failures, but I remember my successes much more. Hmm. Yeah. One final question for you,

as we draw to the end of our time together. If our listeners, investors, wanted to leave this episode with just a daily habit, a mental exercise, an actionable question that we can ask ourselves to train that human judgment muscle.

What would it be? Okay, I'll tell you, Rachel. And I hope, and we talk a lot about this in my podcast, but I really hope this resonates with your listeners. Every one of your listeners can go through life and we'll see ideas of things that can be better. Okay?

products, services, health care, whatever it may be. And they'll look at it and say, wow, this is a problem for me. I'm sure it's a problem for others. I can do something here. And invariably what will happen is they will dismiss the idea

and they will dismiss it because they will think there is surely someone else who has more resources that has thought about this and I'm not going to spend any time. Okay, what I desperately want your listeners to do, I don't want them jumping off a cliff

into shark-infested waters into this idea. But what I want them to do is what I call do small sea commitments. What I want them to do is the next time they get that idea is take a small step. Okay, not an inconsequential one, one where you're like late for dinner and you stop in to actually talk to the customer. Or one where you like miss your flight in order to explore the actual idea. Okay. My point is just start trusting your judgment on these small things. Okay. The way you ultimately can actually enter into the founder arena and actually jump in is by testing yourself repeatedly. And what you might find and what I suspect you'll find is certainly what I found. Every business that I've built, which have been in completely different industries, have not been born because I have an sort of experience advantage or capital advantage. It was because I trusted my judgment to sort of do the small things to suspend disbelief that other large competitors missed it, but only because,

I stopped the car, knocked on the door, whatever it picked up the phone, to do the small things. And so the actionable step is the next time you have an idea, do something small to explore it. And guess what? Nine times out of ten, it'll be a waste of time. But there'll be one time out of ten where you'll be like, wow, this is interesting. Maybe I should take a little more time. Wow. Well, I love that. And thank you so much for joining me today, Res. I appreciate it. Well, thank you. Nice to meet you. As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about, and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against,

so don't buy ourselves stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. For the Motley Fool Conversations team, I'm Rachel Warren. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time. Thank you.