Imagine two islands. One is Serendip, long associated with unexpected discovery, where chance encounters can give rise to outcomes that are both surprising and valuable. The other is its lesser-known counterpart, Zembla, a colder and more austere terrain. On this island, outcomes deteriorate not through bad luck alone, but through sequences of decisions that gradually and often imperceptibly undermine the system itself.

Placing these two imaginaries side by side raises a question that has received relatively little attention in serendipity research: where should the boundary of serendipity be drawn?

Recent work conceptualized serendipity through the interplay of agency, surprise, and value. Yet many empirical cases, particularly in organizational settings, seem to follow a similar underlying process while leading to markedly different outcomes. Unexpected events still occur. Actors still interpret and respond. However, instead of generating value, these processes culminate in decline. To account for this pattern, in this work, I introduce the concept of organizational zemblanity.

From value-generating trajectories to constructed misfortune

As the logical inverse of serendipity, zemblanity can be understood as a related process in which agency engages with unintentional errors and, through sequences of active or passive decisions, contributes to the construction of the organization’s own misfortune. This perspective suggests that the boundary between serendipity and zemblanity does not lie in the presence or absence of chance, nor in whether actors are involved. Instead, it lies in how unexpected situations are processed over time and in the direction those processes take. For zemblanity to take hold, organizations enter an inhibitory condition in which their capacity to respond effectively is constrained. In such situations, strategic agility is impaired. Instead of correcting course, firms engage in patterns of behavior that allow errors to accumulate and amplify. Over time, these patterns can lead to trajectories of decline that are difficult to reverse.

In the paper, I develop this distinction by examining how these trajectories unfold in organizational settings. At the core of this analysis is a simple observation: organizations make errors. These may take the form of misguided investments, misaligned strategies, or failures to anticipate environmental change. In isolation, such events are not unusual. In fact, they are often comparable to the kinds of unexpected occurrences that, in other contexts, may give rise to serendipitous outcomes. The difference thus lies in how organizations respond to these errors. 

Recovery or downfall?

To examine this, the study considered at a set of well-documented organizational cases across industries. These cases reveal two distinct patterns. In some firms, an initial error triggers a process of recognition and adjustment. In others, the same kind of starting point initiates a sequence of reinforcing missteps that gradually deepen the problem. These trajectories can be illustratedd through two scenarios. 

In the first, firms manage to interrupt the trajectory of decline. They detect the error, align internally, and reconfigure their resources accordingly. Companies such as Coca-Cola, Netflix, or Toyota illustrate this pattern. An initial misstep, sometimes highly visible, becomes the basis for corrective action and, in some cases, renewed growth. These cases show that errors can be absorbed and redirected, preventing escalation.

In the second scenario, decline unfolds incrementally. Firms such as Blockbuster, Kodak, or Nokia did not fail because of a single decision. Rather, they engaged in a series of actions and non-actions that gradually amplified the initial error. Strategic responses are delayed, signals are misinterpreted, and adjustments are either insufficient or absent. Over time, these patterns activate reinforcing feedback loops that make recovery increasingly difficult. This pattern is the domain of organizational zemblanity.

Why organizations fail to recover

To understand why some organizations follow one path rather than the other, the paper leverages the concept of strategic agility as a response mechanism. Strategic agility is understood as a configuration of three interdependent capabilities: strategic sensitivity, leadership unity, and resource fluidity. These capabilities operate in sequence and in combination. Strategic sensitivity enables the recognition of the error. Leadership unity allows the organization to commit to a course of action without fragmentation. Resource fluidity makes it possible to implement that course of action in practice.

When these capabilities are aligned, organizations can contain and redirect the effects of an error. When they are not, errors persist and escalate, pushing the organization deeper into an inhibitory condition.

The roots of organizational zemblanity

The analysis further identifies three reinforcing sources that underpin organizational zemblanity: deteriorative culture, leadership deficiencies, and structural inefficiencies. These factors co-occur, reinforce each other, and collectively constrain the organization’s ability to respond.

Cultures that discourage critical reflection limits the detection of errors. Leadership that delays decisions prevents timely correction. Rigid or misaligned structures obstruct the reallocation of resources. When these elements interact, they create conditions in which even minor issues can escalate into sustained decline.

Rethinking the boundary between serendipity and zemblanity

At this point, the distinction with serendipity becomes sharper. In serendipity, unexpected events interact with a receptive and responsive system. The outcome depends on the capacity to notice, interpret, and act in ways that generate value. In zemblanity, unexpected events occur too, but the system fails to respond in a way that redirects the trajectory. Instead, it reinforces it.

The difference, therefore, lies not in the event itself, but in the configuration of responses that follow.

To bring these elements together, the paper proposes an integrated framework that traces the trajectory from an initial error to either recovery or downfall. A key feature of this framework is the emphasis on timing. Between the occurrence of an error and the onset of visible decline, there exists a window during which detection and response are possible. The duration and management of this interval shape the eventual outcome.  From this perspective, organizational outcomes are not determined at the moment of the initial event. They are shaped through the unfolding sequence of interpretations and decisions that follow.

This also reframes how the boundary between serendipity and zemblanity can be understood. Rather than treating them as categorically distinct phenomena, they can be seen as alternative trajectories emerging from similar starting conditions. Both involve agency and unexpected events. What differs is the direction of the process and the effects of action over time (see Figure). Where serendipity highlights how value can emerge from the unexpected, zemblanity shows how, under different conditions, structural elements can produce the opposite outcome.