Leaders often fail to separate outcome from process. A good result from a bad decision (like a risky bet paying off) reinforces poor judgment. Attributing success solely to skill and failure to bad luck prevents process improvement and leads to repeated errors over time.
Related Insights
Successful individuals and companies don't experience more fortunate events. Instead, they excel at capitalizing on positive serendipity and navigating negative shocks. The narrative of "luck" is often a psychological crutch for those unwilling to take responsibility for their reactions to life's inherent volatility.
The goal isn't to permanently erase a belief like "I can't make a mistake," as it is vital in high-stakes situations. Instead, adaptable leaders develop a portfolio of different mindsets. This allows them to consciously select the most effective belief for any given context, turning mental flexibility into a superpower.
A good outcome does not automatically validate the decision-making process, as luck plays a significant role. Howard Marks stresses the importance of intellectual humility in recognizing that a successful result could have stemmed from wrong reasons or randomness, a crucial distinction for repeatable success.
Post-mortems of bad investments reveal the cause is never a calculation error but always a psychological bias or emotional trap. Sequoia catalogs ~40 of these, including failing to separate the emotional 'thrill of the chase' from the clinical, objective assessment required for sound decision-making.
Founders who succeed by randomly trying ideas rather than using a systematic process don't learn repeatable skills. This lucky break can be detrimental, as it validates a flawed strategy and prevents the founder from learning the principles needed for consistent, future success.
People justify high-risk strategies by retroactively fitting themselves into a successful subgroup (e.g., 'Yes, most investors fail, but *smart* ones succeed, and I am smart'). This is 'hindsight gerrymandering'—using a trait like 'smartness,' which can only be proven after the fact, to create a biased sample and rationalize the risk.
Intuition is not a mystical gut feeling but rapid pattern recognition based on experience. Since leaders cannot "watch game tape," they must build this mental library by systematically discussing failures and setbacks. This process of embedding learnings sharpens their ability to recognize patterns in future situations.
If a highly successful person repeatedly makes decisions that seem crazy but consistently work, don't dismiss them. Instead, assume their model of reality is superior to yours in a key way. Your goal should be to infer what knowledge they possess that you don't.
The brain's tendency to create stories simplifies complex information but creates a powerful confirmation bias. As illustrated by a military example where a friendly tribe was nearly bombed, leaders who get trapped in their narrative will only see evidence that confirms it, ignoring critical data to the contrary.
Similar to how charisma is often ascribed to leaders only after their organizations succeed, we tend to label people as geniuses after a major achievement. This creates a narrative fallacy where we assume innate genius caused the success, rather than success causing the attribution of genius.
