Alright, so I started digging into this John Hagestad name a while back. Heard it mentioned, you know, one of those names that pops up in certain circles, supposed to be some kind of big deal in his field, maybe investments or strategy, wasn’t entirely clear at first.
My first step was just trying to get a handle on what his actual thing was. I spent a good chunk of time searching around, reading bits and pieces here and there. Lots of vague talk, honestly. Found mentions of looking at things long-term, maybe finding value where others didn’t. Sounded good on paper, like a lot of these things do.
Trying to Make it Practical
So, theory is one thing, right? I wanted to see if I could actually use whatever this approach was. I picked a small side project I was tinkering with – nothing major, just an idea for a small local service. My thinking was, okay, let’s try and apply this Hagestad lens, whatever that means.
Here’s what I did:
- Forced a longer view: Instead of just thinking about the next few months, I tried to imagine this little service idea five, ten years down the line. What would need to change? What trends might affect it? Felt a bit like staring into a crystal ball, to be honest.
- Looked for hidden value: I tried to figure out if there was some angle nobody else was seeing. Was there a customer group being ignored? A way to do things cheaper or better that wasn’t obvious? Spent hours brainstorming this stuff.
- Researched differently: Instead of just market size and competitors, I tried digging into local demographic shifts, long-term zoning plans, stuff like that. Stuff Hagestad might look at, or so I guessed.
It was… interesting. But also kinda frustrating. There wasn’t a clear roadmap, you know? No step-by-step guide. Felt like I was interpreting tea leaves half the time. Kept thinking, am I even doing this right? Is this what he meant?
What Came Out Of It
Did I strike gold? Nope. The side project idea still has its challenges, same as before. Applying that “Hagestad thinking,” or my interpretation of it, didn’t magically solve anything fundamental.
But it wasn’t totally useless. It did force me to think differently, pushed me out of my usual short-term focus. Considering those longer-term, less obvious factors was a decent mental exercise. Made me ask some questions I wouldn’t have otherwise asked.
So, my practice run with the whole John Hagestad concept? It was a bit muddy. Didn’t get any earth-shattering revelations. But it did stretch my thinking process a bit, made me look under a few rocks I usually ignore. Maybe that’s the point, maybe not. Still feels like you need more than just a name and some vague principles to really make something happen.
