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

購屋糾紛多 預售屋是申訴榜首行政院消費者保護委員會統計,房屋糾紛為去年國人所有申訴糾紛排行榜第一名,3030件糾紛案已佔所有申訴糾紛一成,其中尤以「預售屋」糾紛最為嚴重。發現六大缺失,包括:建商未提供驗收條款或未記載交屋保留款、未明確記載開工日期及取得使用執照期限、未記載地價稅、房屋稅分擔比例、未經買方同意更換主要建材及廠牌規格及交屋期限不明確、未記載建物第一次登記的稅費負擔約定,以及未記載賣方對廣告之義務而且違約金收取過高。 消保官莊惠媛指出,消費者購買預售屋基本上就像購買一個夢想,且大部分消費者必須要花掉一生積蓄才能買回一個窩,但因為預售屋不像成屋,有實體房屋可供檢視,就得預先和房屋業者訂契約先行付款,最後往往因期待有落差而陷入糾紛成為惱人之痛。 莊惠媛呼籲,民眾購屋前為了維護權益,應先瞭解內政部先前訂定的「預售屋買賣契約書範本及預售屋買賣定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項」,尤其針對預售屋挑購提出「八大提醒」,包括:一、確認並履勘預售屋位址;二、攜帶捲尺、相機參觀樣品屋;三、看建築執照影本、執照核准圖說;四、審閱契約並瞭解契約內容;五、索取並保留廣告文案;六、詳實紀錄銷售現場建材資訊;七、洞悉成交紅單、假客戶等銷售手法;八、選擇合法代銷業者,以免受騙上當。 【2009/03/16 聯合晚報】
科技擠壓 原生種子快滅絕 2009/05/15【米千因/文】《聖經‧創世紀》:上帝說:我要將所造的人和走獸並昆蟲以及空中的飛鳥都從地上消滅。 於是上帝在罪惡滿貫的人類中揀選恪守本分的義人諾亞一家,諾亞夫婦、三個兒子及其媳婦,作為新一代人類種子來保存下來。上帝告訴他們,七天之後就要實施大毀滅,而命他們造一只方舟,一間一間地造,裡外抹上松香。諾亞一家立即照辦,等方舟造好之後,上帝說了:看哪!我要使洪水在地上氾濫,毀滅天下,凡地上有血肉、有氣息的活物無一不死。我卻要與你立約,你同你的妻子、兒子、兒媳都要進入方舟。凡潔淨的畜類,你要帶七公七母;不潔淨的畜類,你要帶一公一母;空中的飛鳥也要帶七公七母。這些都可以留種,將來在地上生殖。2月17日當天,諾亞六百歲生辰,海洋裂開,巨大的水柱從地下噴射而出,大雨下不停,整整降了四十天,水無處可流,迅速上漲,淹沒了高山,最後凡是在陸地上靠肺呼吸的動物都死了,只剩下方舟上的人、動物及種子安然無恙。 目前有一群歷史學家與考古學家正在熱衷地尋找證據,來證明諾亞方舟的存在,而部分社會學家與環保人士卻將關注的眼光投向原生種子的培育與保留上。理由是工業革命以至基改科技發達的今日,原生植物種子滅絕了大半而不復得。比方,世界上原有二百多萬種食用性植物,稻米種類至少也有十二萬種之多,如今普遍種植的不到數百種。十九世紀,美洲大陸至少有七千多種不同種類的蘋果,現在則僅剩約三百種,且大都是雜交,原生種如鳳毛麟角;加上企業一手主宰的廣大單作,以及隨後而至的基改技術,雜食性的人類於是被迫成為挑食、偏食、速食的怪物。而糧食分配不均的問題不但未能因而獲得解決,甚且因企業的壟斷而更形惡化。雖有科技的介入而全球饑餓人口不減反增,糧食價格高漲不下,人類身心健康因飲食習慣的改變而為過胖、糖尿病、心臟病、憂鬱症等文明病所苦。人類以科技萬能的傲慢插手上帝的傑作導致這樣的結果,不待歷史學家及考古學家的證明,全球暖化將引發大洪水的理論或會成為事實,那麼,一個有效而力量龐大的逆轉運動若非於此時出現,人難道只能坐以待斃? 義大利人Carlo Petrini首先發難,組成了國際慢食會,且一觸即發,如洪水漫過大地地延燒成一股運動,沒幾年,慢食所講求的良好、公平、乾淨的主旨與精神傳染了全球各角落,因而衍生出林林種種反應在慢活態度的活動與主張,於是慢食之後,慢活、慢設計、慢診斷、慢建築、慢手工、...

司法部要細究微軟/Yahoo搜尋交易

為何美司法部要細究微軟/Yahoo搜尋交易? ZDNET新聞專區:2009/09/14 微軟與Yahoo的搜尋交易,不但實行之日遙遙無期,現在更可能無疾而終。 兩家公司都預期美國聯邦司法部會詳細審查微軟接手Yahoo網搜業務的交易,而兩家公司也在上週五(11日)證實,司法部已要求他們提供更多相關資訊。這代表主管機關對此案的興趣已不只是一般程序的合法性。 針對此案,司法部可能從兩個不同的面向切入。其一,當局將調查廣告主是否因失去一個廣告通路而受損,以及此後Google會否在搜尋市場缺乏改善的動力,因為少了一個最大的競爭者。 就某些方面而言,司法部的調查幾乎是一項反射動作。紐約Constantine Cannon反托辣斯律師Matthew Cantor表示,當某個市場只有三家主要公司,而其中兩家決定合作,自然會引發調查。他說:「這件交易將在一個高門檻,且原本只有三個主角的市場,消滅其中一個競爭者。」他用1960年代的美國媒體市場為例,假如當時僅有的三大電視網有其中兩家決定合併,政府絕對會採取行動。 但這件醞釀多年的交易,卻沒有趕在較不排斥企業併購和收購的前朝政府任內提出。華盛頓州Robbin Russell事務所合夥人Donald Russell指出,經過多年的放任管理,司法部對企業併購活動的興趣又逐漸升高。經濟狀況不佳已減少了企業併購活動,但歐巴馬總統主政之下的司法部,可能開始扮演更強勢的管理角色。 Cantor認為,司法部將強迫微軟和 Yahoo將Yahoo的搜尋技術資產公開標售,換取該案通過。此舉將可引進第三方到搜尋市場,僅管這個新手必須挑起吸引搜尋者的重擔:Yahoo曾表示,絕大部分Yahoo搜尋的使用者,都是透過某個Yahoo網頁進行,這兩者的結合,是網路上流量最高的網頁。然而,微軟看上的不是這部分。該公司已投入龐大的資源推出Bing搜尋引擎,他們想要的是Yahoo搜尋技術的特定面向,更別說某些才華洋溢的工程師。 有鑑於微軟和Google兩大巨人多年來在華府的遊說角力,造成Google近年的交易飽受刁難,這次也可能是Google趁機扳回一城。Google拒絕評論司法部的動作,但有以下聲明:「線上(市場)的競爭一向激烈,而我們的經驗是,競爭為使用者造就了更好的東西。我們有意進一步瞭解這件交易。」(陳智文/譯)