Building Through Uncertainty
The founders who last are not the ones who had certainty. They are the ones who learned to make good decisions without it.
Founder, Majhi Group & Majhi OS
When I started Majhi Group, I sent 184 messages before getting a meaningful response. Not before a paying client, but before a meaningful response. One hundred and eighty-four individually researched, carefully written messages.
What made it hard was not the volume. It was not knowing, after each one, whether the approach was wrong or whether the sample size was just too small. Whether to adjust the message or stay the course. Whether I was being persistent or delusional. Those two things feel almost identical from the inside.
I adjusted the approach anyway, after message 40 and again after 90, based on patterns in what wasn't working. And kept going. The hundred and eighty-fourth message was not more confident than the first. It was just the next one.
That is what building through uncertainty actually looks like. Not clarity arriving before you act. Action preceding clarity, and clarity arriving, if at all, much later.
What uncertainty actually feels like
When you are inside the early stages of building something, the defining condition is not confidence. It is ambiguity. You are making consequential decisions with incomplete information, under time pressure, in a domain where the feedback loops are slow and the error bars are wide.
You do not know if the customer who said they would pay actually will. You do not know if the early traction is signal or noise. You do not know if the hire you are about to make is the right one. You do not know if the competitor who just launched will eat your market or validate it. You decide anyway, because not deciding is also a decision, and usually a worse one.
Watch any polished founder interview and the story sounds clean: insight, execution, growth, outcome. Every decision appears to have been the right one in retrospect. The lived experience is almost nothing like this. The decisions that worked looked uncertain before they worked. The ones that didn't looked reasonable at the time. The difference is not always visible until much later.
The temptation to resolve it prematurely
One of the most common failure modes in early-stage building is what I would call premature resolution: forcing clarity on a question that is not yet answerable, in order to stop feeling uncertain.
It looks like this: committing too early to an assumption that hasn't been tested. Hiring someone senior before you understand what you actually need, because having an experienced person in the room makes the uncertainty feel smaller. Raising capital that makes the problem feel more tractable than it is.
The discomfort of not-knowing is real. The temptation to resolve it through action, any action, is strong. But premature resolution is just trading genuine uncertainty for a false sense of control. The underlying reality has not changed. You have just made it harder to see.
After 184 unanswered messages, adjusting the approach is reversible. Assuming the approach is correct and scaling it before it has been tested is not, because now you have built a system around a wrong assumption. The decision that looks like momentum is sometimes the one to slow down on.
What actually helps
The most useful distinction I have found is between reversible and irreversible decisions. Most decisions are reversible. You can change the product, the price, the message, the approach. For reversible decisions, speed matters more than certainty: the fastest path to understanding is often to act and see what happens. For irreversible decisions, key hires, pivots that foreclose other directions, commitments that are hard to undo, gather more signal before committing.
The second thing that helps is compressing feedback loops wherever possible. The reason uncertainty is so uncomfortable is that you cannot tell whether your decisions are working. Anything that reduces the time between action and signal, talking to customers directly, shipping smaller, measuring what you can actually measure, reduces the sustained discomfort and improves the decisions that follow.
The third is accepting that some uncertainty cannot be resolved before you need to act, only managed. There are questions in any building journey that will not be answered until much later, if ever. The goal is not certainty. It is developing a relationship with not-knowing that doesn't stop you from moving.
Decision frameworks under uncertainty
Beyond the mindset shift, there are specific frameworks that make decisions under uncertainty more reliable.
The pre-mortem, developed by psychologist Gary Klein, is one of the most useful. Before committing to a significant decision, assume it has already failed: a year from now, the decision turned out to be wrong. Then work backwards: what went wrong? The exercise surfaces risks that forward-looking optimism tends to miss, and it does so before the decision is locked in. Research by Klein and colleagues found that pre-mortems increased the ability to identify reasons for potential failure by 30%.
Annie Duke, in her work on decision-making under uncertainty, offers a second framework: separate the quality of the decision from the quality of the outcome. A good decision can produce a bad outcome (bad luck). A bad decision can produce a good outcome (good luck). Judging decisions only by outcomes, which is what most post-mortems do, trains the wrong lesson. The discipline is to evaluate whether the reasoning was sound given the information available at the time, not whether the result was good. Duke's research shows that this distinction, consistently applied, produces better decision-making over time even in high-variance environments.
Both frameworks share a common structure: they make the decision-making process visible and separate it from the outcome, so the learning compounds rather than being noise.
The honest truth about confidence
The founders who appear most confident from the outside are not usually the ones who have resolved their uncertainty. They are the ones who have made peace with it.
The founders who appear most confident are not the ones who resolved their uncertainty. They are the ones who made peace with it.
That realization, when it lands properly, is not deflating. It is liberating. You stop waiting to feel ready. You stop trying to gather enough information before you act. You build a different relationship with not-knowing, less adversarial and more pragmatic. The uncertainty does not go away. You just stop requiring it to.
See also: From Service to System, The Advantage of Building Outside the Metro, The Question Founders Avoid: What Kind of Institution Are You Building?
Sources
Gary Klein: Performing a Project Premortem (Harvard Business Review, 2007)
Annie Duke, Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts
Jeff Bezos, 2016 Amazon Shareholder Letter: Type 1 and Type 2 Decisions
Frequently Asked Questions
How do founders make good decisions under uncertainty?
Three disciplines help most. First, distinguish between reversible and irreversible decisions: most decisions are reversible, so speed matters more than certainty for those. Slow down only for the irreversible ones. Second, build shorter feedback loops wherever possible: talk to customers daily, ship smaller, measure more directly. The faster you get feedback, the less time you spend operating in the dark. Third, accept that some uncertainty cannot be resolved before you need to act, only managed. The goal is not to eliminate uncertainty but to keep moving in the right direction despite it.
What is premature resolution in entrepreneurship and why is it a problem?
Premature resolution is forcing clarity on a question that isn't yet answerable, in order to stop feeling uncertain. It looks like committing too early to an assumption that hasn't been tested, hiring senior people before you understand what you actually need, or raising capital that makes the problem feel smaller than it is. The discomfort of not-knowing is real, and the temptation to resolve it through action, any action, is strong. But premature resolution just trades genuine uncertainty for a false sense of control. The underlying reality hasn't changed. You've just made it harder to see.
How do you build psychological resilience for the sustained uncertainty of early-stage building?
The most important shift is moving from treating uncertainty as a temporary condition before the real work starts, to treating it as the permanent condition in which all building happens. Once that realization lands properly, you stop waiting to feel ready. You stop trying to gather enough information before acting. You build a different relationship with not-knowing, less adversarial and more pragmatic. The founders who appear most confident from the outside are typically not the ones who have resolved their uncertainty. They are the ones who have made peace with it.
Did this land? Push back? Add something I missed?
Reply to Manas →Continue Reading
Related writing
EntrepreneurshipFrom Service to System
The hardest transition in a service business is not from zero to one client. It's from delivering to ten clients by running harder, to delivering to fifty clients because you've built something that scales. One is hustle. The other is architecture. Most founders figure this out only after the hustle stops working.
EntrepreneurshipThe Advantage of Building Outside the Metro
Everyone told me to move to Bangalore. I didn't. What I learned from building in Odisha is that the cost of not being in a hub is mostly overstated, and the benefits are almost never talked about.
EntrepreneurshipWhy Cold Outreach Is a Founder's Most Underrated Skill
Most founders treat cold outreach as a necessary evil, something to survive until referrals take over. I think that's exactly backwards. Cold outreach is a discipline that, done well, compounds faster than almost anything else a founder can build.