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

業界對抑制房價手段 的 反映

  不動產聯盟總會林正雄:高房價政府也是推手 應停止重稅 2023-01-16 22:02   經濟日報/  中華民國不動產聯盟總會理事長林正雄今(16)日指出,這波房價高漲主因惡性通膨所致,尤其政府重稅也是推手之一。他呼籲,政府要「解決缺工」、「停止重稅」等,才能促進房市發展健康化。中華民國不動產聯盟總會提供。 中華民國不動產聯盟總會理事長林正雄今(16)日指出,這波 房價 高漲主因惡性 通膨 所致,尤其政府重稅也是推手之一,政府接連打房只會讓台灣經濟出現破口。他呼籲,政府要「解決缺工」、「停止重稅」等才能促進房市發展健康化。 他指出,近年房價高漲係因通貨膨脹,使各項原物料大幅上漲,全國缺工已經不只是民間 營建業 的大問題,連政府的公共工程都面臨人力短缺的難解課題,尤其營建署在2020年發布的營造業經濟調查報告顯示,全國營建業已缺工近12萬人,2022年以來,營建業的缺工的數字更是呈倍數成長。 他表示,營建業缺工問題亦使工資不斷墊高,在工料雙漲情況下,業者只能反映成本,這也是目前房價居高不下的原因;然而營造物價高漲是國際貿易問題,不易緩解,但「缺工」問題,政府可以透過制度適度鬆綁,修正外籍移工引進規定來解決,如此才能根本解決高房價問題,才是各黨能否獲得「執政」的關鍵! 另外,林正雄強調,政府歷次打房政策與金融限縮,以及大環境通膨,使得業者經營成本增加,諸多限制與稅制閉鎖期違反市場自然運作,連帶使消費者選擇減少。經過兩年多來的強力打房,民眾們應該要清醒了,政府以加徵重稅來打房,其實無助平抑房價,反而重重傷害了眾多相關從業人員的生計。 林正雄呼籲,政府要「解決缺工」、「停止重稅」,不要再以重稅打房,尊重市場機制,才是房市健康化的開始。

台灣建築獎 PRIZE OF ARCHITECTURE

  土建築師打敗普立茲克獎大師 橫山書法館奪台灣建築獎 2022-11-03 01:22   聯合報 坐落於桃園大園、由新世代建築師潘天壹設計的橫山書法藝術館,奪得2022台灣建築獎首獎。圖/潘天壹建築師事務所提供 2022台灣 建築 獎昨公布得主。新世代建築師潘天壹設計的橫山書法藝術館奪得首獎。普立茲克獎得主庫哈斯與姚仁喜合作的北藝中心、普立茲克獎得主坂茂與石昭永合作的南美館,則與德光教會、巨大集團全球營運總部並列佳作。本土建築師打敗兩位普立茲克獎得主,評審形容,台灣建築獎得主潘天壹年紀雖輕,作品卻能同時展現「隽永中有淡淡驚喜」的兩種張力,為喧囂的時代帶來安定的力量,奪得今年建築獎首獎。 橫山書法館與埤塘為鄰,潘天壹以篆刻硯石為意象,將五個硯石內斂而分散地放置於埤塘旁,形成流動的書寫地景。評審認為本案利用東方的合院概念,塑造現代園林遊園式觀瞻,將書法的意境用建築表現。整體呈現安靜、平和、穩健,有驚奇但不吵雜,節奏疏密拿捏得宜。 評審團召集人劉培森指出,潘天壹將建築物拆散成尺度小的院落式組織,空間處理切合主題。他把內部空間的氛圍處理得非常好,讓人感到心靈的沉澱,節奏上又出現不同的層次。當訪客從外界進入內部,層次的處理非常精彩,感受水平空間的寧靜之時,看到天花板的結構,又能感受到趣味性。潘天壹年紀輕、卻有相當成熟的表現,「30年前覺得台灣建築水準差國際一大截,30年後覺得有許多年輕建築師慢慢冒出、令人欣喜。」 橫山書法藝術館從設計到完成花費四年。潘天壹透露,四年過程中「經歷很大的逆轉過程」,到現在都還覺得有一些「未完成」,希望透過獎項啟動學習和陪伴。他認為,建築作品並非完工之後便停止,「每個案子都是孩子、屬於這個地方、擁有自己的生命力」。迄今他每個月都會去看橫山書法館,「看地景如何陪伴民眾、繼續它的旅程」,也希望在建築的發展過程中,學習如何回應社會責任。 潘天壹是新世代建築師中,罕見從未出國留學的「土建築師」。問他心中的「台灣建築」是什麼?他形容是「只有在台灣才看得到的台灣建築」,從中可以找到社會、文化與產業脈動的浮現。他認為,台灣的大環境比較少談書法、台灣文化,因為資訊都是「和洋混合」的強勢文化衝擊,在這種衝擊之下,大家習慣浸泡在張力之中,失去對自己文化內在的表述。他認為,如果將台灣建築獎歷屆的建築師連起來,他們都在串連台灣的DNA,「只要串得下去...

台灣建築聯盟 參與 威尼斯建築展

  五校組建築聯盟進軍威尼斯 台灣常民智慧變成建築語言 2023-02-20 02:53   聯合報/  東海大學 由國立台灣美術館主辦,東海大學建築系團隊策畫的「地景中未完成的協議-台灣改裝」,將代表台灣參加第18屆威尼斯建築雙年展。記者陳宛茜/攝影 台灣的鐵皮屋常被視為混亂的象徵。然而透過東海等五所大學建築系所學生的田野調查,發現鐵皮屋頂因可吸收熱量,被山區農民當成曬蔬菜的空間,成為生產系統的一環。台灣養殖場、茶園田間常見的網屋,看似簡陋的設計卻能提供遮陽、休閒娛樂等多重功能,台中新社農民甚至用網屋防止巨峰葡萄遭鳥兒啄食。「我們希望把常民智慧變成台灣的建築語彙。」由 東海大學 建築系主任曾瑋帶領的跨校建築 團隊 ,花一年時間田野調查台灣建築,成果將在5月舉行的 威尼斯建築雙年展 台灣館中展出。 由國立台灣美術館主辦,東海大學建築系團隊策畫的「地景中未完成的協議-台灣改裝」,將代表台灣參加第18屆威尼斯建築雙年展,5月20日至11月26日於義大利威尼斯台灣館(普里奇歐尼宮)展出。策展團隊透過在台灣不同高度與緯度的農業地景調查,呈現人們為馴服環境帶來的多元建築風貌。 國美館館長廖仁義指出,歷屆威尼斯建築雙年展台灣館都以建築師為主題,此次則是首次以「教學聯盟」共同參與的方式,由東海大學建築學系師生共同完成展覽,同時也邀請國內知名建築學院:成功大學、淡江大學、逢甲大學、中原大學的建築學系學生參與。他認為,此次台灣館的展示方式,不僅具文化展示的意義,也有建築傳承的教育意義。 曾瑋表示,台灣橫跨六個氣候生態區,面對多變的地理與氣候環境,台灣建築發展出柔軟、即時反應的特性。但台灣建築教育往往套用西方系統與觀念,長期忽略台灣建築本身的特色,甚至將台灣建築汙名化。此次帶五校建築系所學生進行廣泛、全面性的田野調查,希望透過大量田調重新定義台灣建築,並從台灣的教育開始扎根。 台灣最常見的乳牛品種來自荷蘭,但乳牛需要適當的陽光照射才能保持健康。策展團隊田調時發現,高緯度乳牛品種的眼睛無法適應台灣的陽光,台灣牧場廣泛使用聚碳酸酯波紋板,減少進入牛欄的陽光量,創造更友善的養牛空間。鄉村常見、設有腳踏輪的棚屋,擁有輕鋼框架和波紋板的可移動結構。農民在棚屋中放置收音機、冰箱、電風扇、延長線,甚至在鷹架掛上祈求風調雨順和豐收的紅條,宛如另一個家。這些台灣典型建築中蘊藏...