Correlation is not causation. In a US Presidential election cycle, there are references to one party’s ascendency to power equating to economic outcomes. These correlations and causation folk tales either lack evidence, do not account for other factors, or focus on limited outcomes.

It is a convenient trap in which we get caught. We believe that adding a certain type of board member, hosting a specific gala, running a certain program, or marketing on a particular platform will lead to a specific outcome. There may be correlation and causation links, but often, they are anecdotal and conceal better decision-making opportunities.

How might we not inherit the C-to-C trap and remain curious, even if it appears to go against tradition?