Skip to main content

Learning to fail


We were taught at a young age that failure is bad. We were told to avoid failure at all cost. Follow the rules, don’t deviate from the script and successful will come. The American education system reinforces this idea and emphasizes these values in the classroom. But we live in a world where gradual change can kill you. To survive, we need to reinvent constantly ourselves. We need to learn to fail, which is hard to do when it goes against everything that we’ve been told.
If we trace this back to the beginning, it’s clear that the American education system has ingrained a fear of failure in all who passed through the doors of schools. I’m not referring to the curriculum or learning critical skills such as writing, oral communication or math, this isn’t the problem. The problem is that teachers and students are penalized for taking risks. Teachers have little room for experimentation because there is a vast amount of curriculum to cover, from which they cannot deviate. And so they do as they are told, building their lesson plans based on what is mandated. Similarly, students are encouraged to take the safer path. The premise is that “easier” classes lead to better grades, which means getting access to better schools, which can lead to a better job and better future.
But this is far from the truth of reality. Today, every industry is being disrupted. We live in an economy of ideas, a place where a majority of tasks and jobs are being automated. The safer thing to do is to create a new job. The challenge is that to create new opportunities, we need to deviate from social norms. We need to try something new and different, something that people might not necessarily agree with us.
If you look at any startup, you’ll notice that they tend to pivot many times before finding the right market fit. The reality is that most products and companies will fail. According to Steve Blank, no business plan survives its first contact with the brand. In other words, businesses should test and validate their hypotheses before building.
But this approach of trial and error challenges our cultural norms. No one wants to be associated with failure, and people tend to be remembered by their project, whether it was a failure or a success. And no one wants to put failure on his or her resume. We want to fit cultural norms, we want to be a part of the broader social group, and we want to meet society’s standard of success. This is because, as Peter Thiel said, courage is in far shorter supply than genius. This idea of being courageous and embracing failure is evident in the character traits of the most successful entrepreneurs who, more often than not, are disagreeable and challenging. They don’t require approval from our society to move ahead with their disruptive ideas. They learn to fail.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Adidas kills TV. Now, let’s debate

The News: Adidas is ditching TV for digital. The company is looking to boost its e-commerce revenues from $1.06 billion in 2016 to $4.25 billion by 2020 — and Adidas wants to use digital channels to get there. The Rationale: Fish where the fish are. Younger consumers don't watch TV anymore. They spend most of their time on their mobile devices. The Controversy: Why do they want to ditch a medium that is allegedly more "critical" to the brand and that generates more sales than digital? Here we have the Debate between TV and digital: Media Consumption TV: People are watching TV now more than ever.  Digital: People are consuming media more than ever, but mostly through digital devices. The Fact: In 2017, people are projected to spend 6 hours on digital – with the majority being mobile devices - while only spending 4 hours consuming television according to the eMarketer forecast. Younger viewers watch 2.5 times more internet video than TV. Consumers aged 13-24 watch 12.1 hours …

How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Aim for Love, Not Likes

Love is an unconditional emotion while like is a more watered-down version of love. Loving someone means that he or she means everything to you while liking someone implies that you are only happy being with that person. Love involves deeper, stronger emotions, while like is more of a tender feeling towards that special someone. In a world of infinite choices, love is everything. Like is a nice to have.  Today, we live in a world of abundance, where people intent to create content surpass their time to consume it. Video content is much easier and cheaper to produce than at any other time in history. YouTube sees 400 hours of video uploaded every minute. Facebook has more than 250,000 status updates in the same span. We could never read and see everything online.  With unlimited possibilities and limited time, we pay sustainable attention to what we love and divided attention to what we like. We spend hours watching Homeland and give our divided attention to our news feed on Facebook. …

Winter and Summer in Adland

It is winter in Adland.  We have moved from a world of scarcity to a world of abundance and algorithms.  We have lost the power of influence. Trust has been severely damaged.  Consumer attention is the new bottleneck. We no longer decide who sees us. Instead, we get picked.  30 second is not enough anymore. We need to take consumers through a scenic journey to create a long lasting relationship.  Everyone is a publisher. It is easier than ever to create, but harder than ever to make a hit.  The impulse to make has far outrun the desire to consume.  New forces have emerged in the form of sophisticated algorithms.  A new model has surfaced called "pay per play,” which scored everything we do on relevance to feeding the machine. It decides what gets picked, when, and where, based on extreme relevancy.  Mass media has vanished. Precision and personalization have emerged.  It is winter in Adland. The good days are all long gone.  It is Summer in Adland We now have the power to make bra…