A psychologist of my acquaintance listened intently as I bemoaned having failed at one thing or another in the past. Job. Start-up. Relationship. Take your pick. Instead of saying, “Well just don’t do those things ,” he explained that failure is to be expected. It forms the better part of our lives. It’s how we use that information that makes the difference between falling back, staying put or forging ahead to meet our challenges.
I am making a few assumptions here, wholly based on observed life experiences. I assume most humans are taught, in one way or another, to avoid or even fear failure at all costs. Why? The potential for condemnation by your family or peers, because someone may laugh at you or because it has been made clear to you that failure is simply not an option as severe consequences will surely ensue. My psychologist friend says, “So what? Why beat yourself up or become paralyzed with fear of coming up short?” He went on the point out that we, as a society, actually tolerate a high degree of failure. “Why do you think a professional baseball player with a .300 average gets paid millions of dollars? Think of it: he only succeeds 30% of the time!”
Interesting point. That not only means the outward definition of success is fairly elastic, it also points to the fact that the ball player – despite high levels of failure – picks himself up and gives it another go. But why? Because he is determined to improve his skills and up his success rate – for whatever his reasons and, sometimes, at whatever the cost.
“Life is 10% how you make it and 90% how you take it.” Entrepreneur turned venture capitalist, Mark Suster says that this is one of his favorite quotes. Suster goes on the say, “It’s not a recommendation that you don’t have to put in effort to make your life better. It’s an acknowledgment that whatever the outcomes in your life you can choose to be happy or choose to be miserable.”
Suster is not new to failure. The key to his financial and personal success is how he used those experiences to chart another trajectory. Suster calls it embracing your losses:
…I embrace losing. It is how I learn. I relive the moment so many times over in my mind wondering if I could have done this differently or if I shouldn’t have said or done this or that. I talk to trusted sources about it. I ask for feedback. I hate losing. I don’t want to lose next time.
Of course, you always have the option to only stick to those things at which you excel, but consider this: what happens when the market for those skills dries up or you become bored with the same old things? You’ve just run headlong into your own electric fence. Nowhere to go and nothing to do. This could either be the end of the road or possibly a heretofore unseen fork in the road presenting unknown opportunities. Just shift your perspective a bit. Up until now, following the path of least resistance, i.e. the things you’re already good at, allowed you to put off making any tough choices; the kind of choices that just might lead to failure. Now that that path has reached its natural conclusion, it’s decision time. As some wise soul once said, “I don’t care where you go but can’t stay here.”
I can already hear the litany: But it might not work out. I probably won’t find funding. I can’t run a business by myself. I don’t think I’d be any good at that. Yeah, you’ve got two left feet and you’ve fallen down all your life. Of course, failing at something this important sucks. What’s the lesson here? Take this as a perfect time to learn to walk in a whole new way. The Dalai Lama says, “Determination and hope are key factors for a brighter future.” Consider that .300 average ball player. Imagine that you redefine success such that staying upright 30% of the time instead of staying down 100% of the time is the real home run.
A letter from the editors of the online version of BBC News details the seemingly simple problem of handling outbound site links. I say “seemingly” because their apparent intent is to discover how (and whether) people use links within or related to their articles. I contend the issue is really one of credibility, connectivity and knowledge sharing.
According to the letter, “director general Mark Thompson set as one of its goals a major increase in outbound links from the BBC website.” Makes sense from a limited profit perspective perhaps, but the days of measuring efficacy through page views and popularity by outbound links may be nearing an end in some respects. Even some of the feedback comments hint at fundamental disconnect between the way the organization views itself (current and in touch) and the way readers view the organization (trusted archive). Many of the 70+ responses cite usable design and perceptions of trust and content validity as areas of concern. If the BBC can go beyond the narrow goal of linking policy, they might come to the conclusion that what they’re really grappling with is how to tap social media and other reverberating communications to extend their reach beyond the Point A -> Point B vision.
I’ll be the first to admit that media outlets like the BBC and New York Times have come a long way from the days of pasting 3-column pages on a domain and calling it a website. Aside from figuring out how to monetize and protect their content, traditional media is still bounded by its own world of carefully constructed walls. It’s no longer a question of whether and how source linking should be managed or even if inbound links can easily be posted to Twitter. That sort of thinking does not constitute real participation in the immediacy and intimacy of social media. Do these organizations want to really be in touch? Then it’s time to explore how to become a credible, trusted source capable of facilitating conversations and expanding their reach into areas they may not control but can no longer ignore if they hope to stay relevant – and profitable.
Adapt. That way lies staying power.
