Think Like a Rocket Scientist

Changing the world one problem at a time requires delaying gratification.

If we engage in resulting, we reward bad decisions that lead to good outcomes. Conversely, we change good decisions merely because they produced a bad outcome.

“Failure hovers uncomfortably close to greatness,” wrote James Watson,

The goal, then, is to focus on the variables you can control—the inputs—instead of the outputs.

You should ask, “What went wrong with this failure?” and if the inputs need fixing, you should fix them. But this question isn’t enough. You must also ask, “What went right with this failure?” You should retain the good-quality decisions, even if they produced a failure.

The amateur focuses on getting hits and expects short-term results. The professional plays the long game and prioritizes inputs, perfecting them for years with no immediate payoff.

Sharapova cautions, and zero in on the inputs. By taking the pressure off the outcome, you get better at your craft. Success becomes a consequence, not the goal.

With an input-focused mindset, you’re free to change your destination. Goals can help you focus, but that focus can also turn into tunnel vision if you refuse to budge or pivot from your initial path.

Pfizer scientists developed a new drug called sildenafil citrate. Researchers hoped the drug would expand blood vessels to treat angina and high blood pressure associated with heart disease.

Not “I’m a loser.” Not “This is awful.” Not “What a complete embarrassment.” Instead, with no judgment, he’d ponder, “Isn’t it funny how sometimes things work and other times they don’t?”

Every time you make a mistake, every time you fail at something, you should throw your arms in the air and say, “How fascinating

When we shoot the messengers, people stop delivering messages

We explain away our own failures by blaming them on external factors. But when others stumble, we point to internal factors—they were careless, incompetent, or not paying enough attention.

When I speak to corporate executives on failure, some of them argue that if failure is tolerated, then failures will multiply. Failure means fault, and fault needs to be assigned. If these executives don’t discipline the responsible party, they assume they’ll end up nurturing an anything-goes culture, where it becomes okay to fail.

You can allow people to take high-quality risks, but you can also set high standards.

You can reward intelligent failures, sanction poor performance, and accept that some errors are going to be inevitable when you’re building things that may not work.

Psychological safety means, in Edmondson’s words, “no one will be punished or humiliated for errors, questions, or requests for help, in the service of reaching ambitious performance goals.”

“Reward excellent failures, punish mediocre successes,”

I have found one common thread: Everyone—and I mean everyone—is a walking imperfection. Even genius isn’t blunder-proof.

Exposing your vulnerability can make you more desirable in the eyes of others.