Rewarding successful outcomes incentivizes employees to choose less risky, less innovative projects they know they can complete. To foster true moonshots, Alphabet's X rewards behaviors like humility and curiosity, trusting that these habits are the leading indicators of long-term breakthroughs.
Anthropic's team of idealistic researchers represented a high-variance bet for investors. The same qualities that could have caused failure—a non-traditional, research-first approach—are precisely what enabled breakout innovations like Claude Code, which a conventional product team would never have conceived.
An innovation arm's performance isn't its "batting average." If a team pursues truly ambitious, "exotic" opportunities, a high failure rate is an expected and even positive signal. An overly high success rate suggests the team is only taking safe, incremental bets, defeating its purpose.
Drawing on Charlie Munger's wisdom, investment management problems often stem from misaligned incentives. Instead of trying to change people's actions directly, leaders should redesign the incentive structure. Rational individuals will naturally align their behavior with well-constructed incentives that drive desired client outcomes.
In a remote workforce, scrappy problem-solving is often invisible. Leaders must create a system to surface and publicly celebrate reps who use creativity to overcome blockers. This not only rewards the desired behavior but also transforms individual wins into scalable learning moments for the entire team.
Innovation requires psychological safety. When employees are afraid to speak up or make mistakes, they become "armored" and growth stagnates. To unlock potential, leaders must create environments where the joy of creation and contribution outweighs the fear of failure.
The default assumption for any 'moonshot' idea is that it is likely wrong. The team's immediate goal is to find the fatal flaw as fast as possible. This counterintuitive approach avoids emotional attachment and speeds up the overall innovation cycle by prioritizing learning over being right.
Corporate creativity follows a bell curve. Early-stage companies and those facing catastrophic failure (the tails) are forced to innovate. Most established companies exist in the middle, where repeating proven playbooks and playing it safe stifles true risk-taking.
Creativity thrives not from pressure, but from a culture of psychological safety where experimentation is encouraged. Great thinkers often need to "sit on" a brief for weeks to let ideas incubate. Forcing immediate output stifles breakthrough campaign thinking.
For ambitious 'moonshot' projects, the vast majority of time and effort (90%) is spent on learning, exploration, and discovering the right thing to build. The actual construction is a small fraction (10%) of the total work. This reframes failure as a critical and expected part of the learning process.
To encourage participation from everyone, leaders should focus on the 'why' behind an idea (intention) and ask curious questions rather than judging the final output. This levels the playing field by rewarding effort and thoughtfulness over innate talent, making it safe for people to share imperfect ideas.