The way you frame goals will mold how you achieve them

 

     "I want our team to work our hardest and do our best." "I want our team to win the contract." Are these two statements the same thing? I don't think so. There are so many ways a team can win a contract but stating "I want us to win" puts the situation into a win/lose category.

     There are two (probably more) ways for the "win the contract" scenario to come about. The first is that your team wins. The other is that the other team loses.

     There can be a concentration on hoping the other team does things such that they lose and ways to make the other team lose. The focus is a negative one and energy is spent concerning the other team.

     Their lead worker gets hurt, an important paper gets mislaid, your team steals important confidential information from them that gives you an edge, your team gives false information about the other team that influences the purchaser's opinion and decisions, you promise things you cannot fulfill knowing that the other team wouldn't make such promises, and so forth.

     These may be "skills" and "techniques" that you can use many times in the future, but they do not make your team better. They do not make your product better. It may improve your "bottom line" in the short-term but they do not make your team continue to improve for the long haul.

     How about the other way -- "I want our team to work our hardest and do our best." First, it may still end up being a win/lose but it does not preclude the possibility of win/win. Next, how do you achieve these goals? The goals of "working our hardest and doing our best"? You are now concentrating on your own team efforts. That doesn't mean you close your eyes and ears to what the competition is doing -- that is a legitimate part of work. But you are concentrating on your own team. Keeping realistic work/life balance in mind and the reality that overextending is counter-productive, you try to make each 8 hours of work include 8 hours of useful work. And, within that work time, you want to help your team function at their best. People work according to their strengths, overhead is minimized, obstacles are removed, and coordination and communication is made as directly useful as possible.

    You can, of course, substitute in the words appropriate for other competitive situations in life -- personal, business, political, and so on.

     At the end of the period, you will have gotten the contract or not. But if you have worked hard and done your best then you won't have any regrets. You can shake the hands of your competitors, smile, and say "Congratulations. Wait until next time." And sleep well.

Failure: How does it help to lead to success?

 

     There are a lot of memes about failure. I normally give them a like, occasionally an insightful. Most people would agree that failure is only a stumbling block towards the future. Yet, I have a well-worn NASA t-shirt reading "Failure is Not an Option". What gives? Isn't that contradictory?

     Failure is not an option. This doesn't mean that failure cannot happen. When you are putting together a list of scenarios, there are paths -- things that occur -- which deviate from success. What do you do when you reach a scenario of "failure", or non-success? You start initiating methods of surviving or restarting or recovering or overcoming the problem(s). In data tree terminology, failure is never an "end node". In non-computerese -- failure just means you try something different, you don't allow it to stop you.

     So, failure is not an end goal. How can "non-success" be of benefit? In any plan, or design, there are likely to be multiple places where things might not go as desired. People leave. Prototypes don't work. Money gets low or runs out. A hurricane hits the building. You have such a huge surge in customers it is not possible to keep up with deliveries -- damaging your reputation and allowing competition a window in which to gain ground. Many, many things can happen. No one can anticipate every possibility -- and too much preparation for unlikely possibilities can be counter-productive by using resources better used elsewhere.

     You are moving along on your plan. Something happens to cause you to have to try to find a solution quickly. You don't find the solution quickly enough -- you "fail". The next time you start proceeding on a plan, prior experience (which, hopefully, you have thought long and hard about) will help you to avoid, or ameliorate, the possibility of the same problem occurring. That doesn't mean that no other problem will occur but as you iterate you can become more adept at addressing problems quickly and have more experience that can be used -- either directly or indirectly.

     Someone who has the same problems occurring time and time again is not learning from it -- and should probably find a different line of work (this can also apply to social or personal situations). Someone who has not succeeded multiple times may, or may not, be someone on the edge of making it their goal-line the next time. Their precise situations should be carefully examined before committing yourself to their plan.

     A local university thinks that it is terrible, and will reject students, if it has taken them more than twice to pass a course. Totally illogical and absurd. First, there are many reasons why a student might not pass a course -- pandemic, illness, inept professors, overcommitments, etc. There are probably more reasons not directly in the student's control why they might not pass than reasons in their control (not smart enough, not dedicated enough, ...). I have interviewed, and hired, a lot of people throughout my career. I wouldn't penalize someone for passing a course the first time but I would be more impressed with someone who persevered until they succeeded. Not only have they reached the desired objective but they showed the dedication needed to overcome obstacles. The same logic can apply to anyone, or any situation.

     And that pretty much summarizes the use of failures. Failures allow a person to learn. If a person takes a test but is not told in what areas they did not do well in, they have lost the potential to learn and improve. That is true whether or not they achieved a "passing" score. Failures allow them to learn. Some failures are self-evident. Others have to be described and explained but lack of knowledge of them can be fatal to growth and improvement.