Skip to main content

失敗為成功之母

Scott Adams' Secret of Success: Failure

What's the best way to climb to the top? Be a failure.

“Dilbert” creator Scott Adams talks to WSJ editor Gary Rosen about how to draw lessons, skills and ideas from your failures—and why following your passion is asking for trouble. Photo: Scott Adams
If you're already as successful as you want to be, both personally and professionally, congratulations! Here's the not-so-good news: All you are likely to get from this article is a semientertaining tale about a guy who failed his way to success. But you might also notice some familiar patterns in my story that will give you confirmation (or confirmation bias) that your own success wasn't entirely luck.
If you're just starting your journey toward success—however you define it—or you're wondering what you've been doing wrong until now, you might find some novel ideas here. Maybe the combination of what you know plus what I think I know will be enough to keep you out of the wood chipper.
Let me start with some tips on what not to do. Beware of advice about successful people and their methods. For starters, no two situations are alike. Your dreams of creating a dry-cleaning empire won't be helped by knowing that Thomas Edison liked to take naps. Secondly, biographers never have access to the internal thoughts of successful people. If a biographer says Henry Ford invented the assembly line to impress women, that's probably a guess.
Scott Adams
But the most dangerous case of all is when successful people directly give advice. For example, you often hear them say that you should "follow your passion." That sounds perfectly reasonable the first time you hear it. Passion will presumably give you high energy, high resistance to rejection and high determination. Passionate people are more persuasive, too. Those are all good things, right?
Here's the counterargument: When I was a commercial loan officer for a large bank, my boss taught us that you should never make a loan to someone who is following his passion. For example, you don't want to give money to a sports enthusiast who is starting a sports store to pursue his passion for all things sporty. That guy is a bad bet, passion and all. He's in business for the wrong reason.
My boss, who had been a commercial lender for over 30 years, said that the best loan customer is someone who has no passion whatsoever, just a desire to work hard at something that looks good on a spreadsheet. Maybe the loan customer wants to start a dry-cleaning store or invest in a fast-food franchise—boring stuff. That's the person you bet on. You want the grinder, not the guy who loves his job.
For most people, it's easy to be passionate about things that are working out, and that distorts our impression of the importance of passion. I've been involved in several dozen business ventures over the course of my life, and each one made me excited at the start. You might even call it passion.
The ones that didn't work out—and that would be most of them—slowly drained my passion as they failed. The few that worked became more exciting as they succeeded. For example, when I invested in a restaurant with an operating partner, my passion was sky high. And on day one, when there was a line of customers down the block, I was even more passionate. In later years, as the business got pummeled, my passion evolved into frustration and annoyance.
On the other hand, Dilbert started out as just one of many get-rich schemes I was willing to try. When it started to look as if it might be a success, my passion for cartooning increased because I realized it could be my golden ticket. In hindsight, it looks as if the projects that I was most passionate about were also the ones that worked. But objectively, my passion level moved with my success. Success caused passion more than passion caused success.
So forget about passion. And while you're at it, forget about goals, too.
Just after college, I took my first airplane trip, destination California, in search of a job. I was seated next to a businessman who was probably in his early 60s. I suppose I looked like an odd duck with my serious demeanor, bad haircut and cheap suit, clearly out of my element. I asked what he did for a living, and he told me he was the CEO of a company that made screws. He offered me some career advice. He said that every time he got a new job, he immediately started looking for a better one. For him, job seeking was not something one did when necessary. It was a continuing process.
This makes perfect sense if you do the math. Chances are that the best job for you won't become available at precisely the time you declare yourself ready. Your best bet, he explained, was to always be looking for a better deal. The better deal has its own schedule. I believe the way he explained it is that your job is not your job; your job is to find a better job.
This was my first exposure to the idea that one should have a system instead of a goal. The system was to continually look for better options.
Throughout my career I've had my antennae up, looking for examples of people who use systems as opposed to goals. In most cases, as far as I can tell, the people who use systems do better. The systems-driven people have found a way to look at the familiar in new and more useful ways.
To put it bluntly, goals are for losers. That's literally true most of the time. For example, if your goal is to lose 10 pounds, you will spend every moment until you reach the goal—if you reach it at all—feeling as if you were short of your goal. In other words, goal-oriented people exist in a state of nearly continuous failure that they hope will be temporary.
If you achieve your goal, you celebrate and feel terrific, but only until you realize that you just lost the thing that gave you purpose and direction. Your options are to feel empty and useless, perhaps enjoying the spoils of your success until they bore you, or to set new goals and re-enter the cycle of permanent presuccess failure.
I have a friend who is a gifted salesman. He could have sold anything, from houses to toasters. The field he chose (which I won't reveal because he wouldn't appreciate the sudden flood of competition) allows him to sell a service that almost always auto-renews. In other words, he can sell his service once and enjoy ongoing commissions until the customer dies or goes out of business. His biggest problem in life is that he keeps trading his boat for a larger one, and that's a lot of work.
Observers call him lucky. What I see is a man who accurately identified his skill set and chose a system that vastly increased his odds of getting "lucky." In fact, his system is so solid that it could withstand quite a bit of bad luck without buckling. How much passion does this fellow have for his chosen field? Answer: zero. What he has is a spectacular system, and that beats passion every time.
As for my own system, when I graduated from college, I outlined my entrepreneurial plan. The idea was to create something that had value and—this next part is the key—I wanted the product to be something that was easy to reproduce in unlimited quantities. I didn't want to sell my time, at least not directly, because that model has an upward limit. And I didn't want to build my own automobile factory, for example, because cars are not easy to reproduce. I wanted to create, invent, write, or otherwise concoct something widely desired that would be easy to reproduce.
[image]Scott Adams
My system of creating something the public wants and reproducing it in large quantities nearly guaranteed a string of failures. By design, all of my efforts were long shots. Had I been goal-oriented instead of system-oriented, I imagine I would have given up after the first several failures. It would have felt like banging my head against a brick wall.
But being systems-oriented, I felt myself growing more capable every day, no matter the fate of the project that I happened to be working on. And every day during those years I woke up with the same thought, literally, as I rubbed the sleep from my eyes and slapped the alarm clock off.
Today's the day.
If you drill down on any success story, you always discover that luck was a huge part of it. You can't control luck, but you can move from a game with bad odds to one with better odds. You can make it easier for luck to find you. The most useful thing you can do is stay in the game. If your current get-rich project fails, take what you learned and try something else. Keep repeating until something lucky happens. The universe has plenty of luck to go around; you just need to keep your hand raised until it's your turn. It helps to see failure as a road and not a wall.
I'm an optimist by nature, or perhaps by upbringing—it's hard to know where one leaves off and the other begins—but whatever the cause, I've long seen failure as a tool, not an outcome. I believe that viewing the world in that way can be useful for you too.
Nietzsche famously said, "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger." It sounds clever, but it's a loser philosophy. I don't want my failures to simply make me stronger, which I interpret as making me better able to survive future challenges. (To be fair to Nietzsche, he probably meant the word "stronger" to include anything that makes you more capable. I'd ask him to clarify, but ironically he ran out of things that didn't kill him.)
Becoming stronger is obviously a good thing, but it's only barely optimistic. I do want my failures to make me stronger, of course, but I also want to become smarter, more talented, better networked, healthier and more energized. If I find a cow turd on my front steps, I'm not satisfied knowing that I'll be mentally prepared to find some future cow turd. I want to shovel that turd onto my garden and hope the cow returns every week so I never have to buy fertilizer again. Failure is a resource that can be managed.
Before launching Dilbert, and after, I failed at a long series of day jobs and entrepreneurial adventures. Here are just a few of the worst ones. I include them because successful people generally gloss over their most aromatic failures, and it leaves the impression that they have some magic you don't.
When you're done reading this list, you won't have that delusion about me, and that's the point. Success is entirely accessible, even if you happen to be a huge screw-up 95% of the time.
My failures:
Velcro Rosin Bag Invention: In the 1970s, tennis players sometimes used rosin bags to keep their racket hands less sweaty. In college, I built a prototype of a rosin bag that attached to a Velcro strip on tennis shorts so it would always be available when needed. My lawyer told me it wasn't patentworthy because it was simply a combination of two existing products. I approached some sporting-goods companies and got nothing but form-letter rejections. I dropped the idea.
But in the process I learned a valuable lesson: Good ideas have no value because the world already has too many of them. The market rewards execution, not ideas. From that point on, I concentrated on ideas that I could execute. I was already failing toward success, but I didn't yet know it.
Gopher Offer: During my banking career, in my late 20s, I caught the attention of a senior vice president at the bank. Apparently my b.s. skills in meetings were impressive. He offered me a job as his gopher/assistant with the vague assurance that I would meet important executives during the normal course of my work, which would make it easy for him to strap a rocket to my backside—as the saying roughly went—and launch me up the corporate ladder.
On the downside, the challenge would be to survive his less-than-polite management style and do his bidding for a few years. I declined his offer because I was already managing a small group of people, so becoming a gopher seemed like a step backward. I believe the senior vice president's exact characterization of my decision was "[expletive] STUPID!!!" He hired one of my co-workers for the job instead, and in a few years that fellow became one of the youngest vice presidents in the bank's history.
I worked for Crocker National Bank in San Francisco for about eight years, starting at the very bottom and working my way up to lower management. During the course of my banking career, and in line with my strategy of learning as much as I could about the ways of business, I gained an extraordinarily good overview of banking, finance, technology, contracts, management and a dozen other useful skills. I wouldn't have done it any differently.
Webvan: In the dot-com era, a startup called Webvan promised to revolutionize grocery delivery. You could order grocery-store items over the Internet, and one of Webvan's trucks would load your order at the company's modern distribution hub and set out to service all the customers in your area.
I figured Webvan would do for groceries what Amazon had done for books. It was a rare opportunity to get in on the ground floor. I bought a bunch of Webvan stock and felt good about myself. When the stock plunged, I bought some more. I repeated that process several times, each time licking my lips as I acquired ever-larger blocks of the stock at prices I knew to be a steal.
When the company announced that it had achieved positive cash flow at one of its several hubs, I knew that I was onto something. If it worked in one hub, the model was proved, and it would surely work at others. I bought more stock. Now I owned approximately, well, a boatload.
A few weeks later, Webvan went out of business. Investing in Webvan wasn't the dumbest thing I've ever done, but it's a contender. The loss wasn't enough to change my lifestyle. But boy, did it sting psychologically. In my partial defense, I knew it was a gamble, not an investment per se.
What I learned from that experience is that there is no such thing as useful information that comes from a company's management. Now I diversify and let the lying get smoothed out by all the other variables in my investments.
These failures are just a sampling. I'm delighted to admit that I've failed at more challenges than anyone I know.
As for you, I'd like to think that reading this will set you on the path of your own magnificent screw-ups and cavernous disappointments. You're welcome! And if I forgot to mention it earlier, that's exactly where you want to be: steeped to your eyebrows in failure.
It's a good place to be because failure is where success likes to hide in plain sight. Everything you want out of life is in that huge, bubbling vat of failure. The trick is to get the good stuff out.
Mr. Adams is the creator of Dilbert. Adapted from his book "How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big," to be published by Portfolio, a member of Penguin Group (USA), on Oct. 22.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

工程排水量設計 與 暴雨量

  獨家/直擊大巨蛋落下「瀑布」 民眾疑惑問:排水系統呢? 14:35 2021/06/04   中時   張穎齊 中央氣象局發布豪大雨特報,有民眾直擊拍下大巨蛋從「蛋頂」沖下的瀑布影片,疑惑直呼「排水系統呢?」。(民眾提供/張穎齊台北傳真) 木柵路2段109巷口淹水。(北市府提供/張穎齊台北傳真) 南湖大橋下淹水。(北市府提供/張穎齊台北傳真) 北市消防局門口淹水。(北市府提供/張穎齊台北傳真) 六張犁信安街淹水。(北市府提供/張穎齊台北傳真) 中央氣象局發布豪大雨特報,受颱風及鋒面接近影響,北市中午12時起開始有持續性的強對流發展,市中心有瞬間強降雨,文山、大安及信義區時雨量均超過100毫米,大安及信義區最大10分鐘雨量均超過30毫米,多處積淹水。不過也有民眾直擊拍下大巨蛋從「蛋頂」沖下的瀑布影片,疑惑直呼「排水系統呢?」 北市府表示,目前測得最大累積雨量為大安區福州山站127.5毫米,水利署已發布南港區淹水一級警戒及松山區一級警戒,水利處稍早通知南港區南深陸閘門因為逼近警戒水位,可能隨時關閉。 此外,水利處也已通知各區里,因目前瞬間強降雨遠大於下水道的容量,會有積水狀況發生,如有地下室的應盡速關上防水閘門,減少積水進入地下室造成損失。而木柵路2段109巷口淹水,深約20公分,範圍約100平方公尺,南湖大橋下淹水長度約50公尺、寬度約10尺、深度約50公分。

拆除案 與都更案類似之場景 溝通或方案可能不足

緊急喊停!拆南鐵最後1戶踢鐵板 雙方對峙1小時 鐵道局:今拆除取消 07:42 2020/07/23   中時   鐵道局中工處主任工程司吳志仁宣布今天拆除喊卡。(曹婷婷攝) 字級設定: 小 中 大 特 影》緊急喊卡!拆南鐵最後一戶 雙方對峙1小時 鐵道局今不拆了! 拒拆遷戶陳致曉家門外一度聚集大批警力。(曹婷婷攝) 反對拆遷抗爭者守在大門內。(曹婷婷攝) 警方在7點多撤離,鐵道局隨後宣布取消今天拆除行動。(曹婷婷攝) 台南鐵路地下化強拆作業預計今天清晨6時拆除最後一棟拒拆遷戶、青年路陳致曉家,交通部鐵道局中工處人員和大批警力6點一到在陳宅外宣讀拆除程序於法有據,屋內上百人不斷高呼「反東移、反對徵收」口號,雙方對峙1個多小時後,鐵道局中工處7點20分宣布基於避免衍生衝突,衍生社會成本,今天拆除計畫決定取消。 交通部鐵道局中部工程處主任工程司吳志仁7點20分出面宣布,南鐵地下化是台南重大計畫,但因為考量陳宅有許多人,基於避免造成衝突及衍生不必要社會成本,決定取消。他強調,因全案只剩陳宅拒拆,接下來會傳持續跟陳致曉溝通。 針對鐵道局宣布暫緩任務,陳致曉表示,將討論戰術,「但我不會因此開心,因為今天不攻,明天、後天也會來。」並回嗆「他來我就打!」 反南鐵東移拒拆 自救會長嗆:「歡迎攻進來」 07:12 2020/07/23   中時   反南鐵東移聲援民眾守在待拆戶家中,不願撤離。(李宜杰攝) Facebook   Messenger   Line   Weibo   Twitter   Telegram   複製連結 字級設定: 小 中 大 特 警民仍持續對峙中,鐵道局也釋出善意要溝通。(李宜杰攝) 配合南鐵地下化工程,鐵道局中工處預計今日(23)清晨6時拆除東區青年路陳家。目前反南鐵東移全線自救會長陳致曉與雙親,及超過百名聲援民眾守在陳家客廳,手拉手拒絕撤退,警方及鐵道局人員被拒於門外,並提出要與陳致曉溝通,陳致曉則回嗆「絕不會交涉,歡迎攻進來!」 據悉,目前怪手已進駐陳家後院,百名警力、消防車、救護車也都部署完畢,衝突一觸即發,聲援民眾痛斥「行政訴訟還在打,不要當政黨打

司法改革心

中時社論》司法改革 制度要改心更要改 2017/6/11 下午  司法改革國是會議第1分組第4次增開會議在司法院開會。(黄世麒攝) 司法改革國是會議5個分組分別進行了3個月的會議,已全部結束。5個分組各自提出數十件改革提議,總量非常可觀,多項分組決議曾引起社會高度爭議,且司法院、法務部、律師團體間顯然有嚴重的價值觀與職務立場衝突,接下來幕僚人員如何進行議題綜整,全體會議如何達成總結性結論,事關改革成敗與國家民主發展,身為媒體必須關注,並適時對社會發出建言與警語。 分組討論議題牽涉甚廣,從金字塔式的訴訟制度、賦予大法官違憲裁判審查權、保障司法程序弱勢方權利、修復式司法法制化,到研究設立商業法院、特別勞動訴訟程序、稅務法庭,到高度政治性的增訂妨害司法公正罪,以切斷政治干擾司法的可能性。此外,還包括調整法官晉用制度、終審法院行公開言詞辯論、研議法庭直播提高司法透明度,及檢察體系的性格定位、刑事訴訟程序從起訴的方法開始改變,到改善判決文書格式以求易懂等。 司法的重要性,這裡就不必再行強調。司法的社會公信力嚴重不足,到達需要召開司法改革國是會議來開藥方治病的地步,本身就令人痛心疾首。其實司法改革大業,一方面固然有制度上需要調整的地方,另一方面也有司法人員行為、文化必須大幅檢討改進之處。改革制度需要協調立法、行政、司法甚至考試諸院配合行事,但相對司法相關人員的「革心」,還是比較容易,人的行為與文化改變更困難。台灣民主體制下司法獨立,不受行政及政治干預,為了追求司法獨立的提升而改變司法人員的行為與文化,尤其困難。 改變司法人員的行為與文化具有先天性的困難,在這次司改會議過程中已一覽無遺。這次會議特別引進了半數不具法律背景的委員參與討論,其實就是希望避免法界人士研議司法改革時,閉門造車、諱疾忌醫,甚至護短,成為改革的障礙,但諱疾忌醫甚至護短的毛病仍然不時出現,雖不令人意外,但仍然對會議的進行與成果形成負面的影響。法界人士包括官員、教授、司法從業人士,因為諱疾忌醫甚至護短而在媒體上攻訐,不惜傷害司改會議的社會形象,令人感到遺憾。 諱疾忌醫甚至護短的現象,從議題處理方式的輕重選擇,也可看得出來。關說司法,特別是政治人物包括民意代表關說司法,問題普遍而且觀念嚴重偏頗的程度,從前立法院長王金平加上前檢察總長黃世銘的訴訟案件中,就足以一覽無遺。政