Scott Berkun

Why conferences must talk about failure

The web failed to let me know about this one before it happened, but last week The first ever FAILCON event took place, where 400 people met to talk about and learn from failure (hat tip: Lynn). The only other thing like it I can think of is failcamp, which didn’t get the buzz it deserved.

From the nice writeup on Wired, it appears the event went well and hopefully there will be more events like this, or perhaps even other well known events will adopt a “Learning from failure” track. If you can get high profile folks like those who spoke at FAILCON to talk about failure, it makes it easier for everyone else to do it as well.

At FOO camp, most years Joshua Schachter runs a little session called ‘That Sucked’, where anyone who wants to can tell a story about something going horribly wrong, and it’s always a fun and popular session (I remember one year Paul Graham told a story of a bug in his code that caused an old plotter style printer to fling it’s printing head off it’s rails and fly across the room).

In many cases I bet people learn more from hearing people they respect talk about their mistakes, than hearing people tell perfectly fake, boring, takeaway free stories of things going perfectly well (e.g. lies).  All innovators fail more than they succeed, and thrive on experiments which mostly go wrong, often on purpose. It’s the only way to learn something no one else knows.

Anything conferences do to get to the truth and teach is progress, and I’d love to see all of the above spirit and ideas adopted at just about any event.

Also see:

• How to get the most out of conferences
• The problem with (training) events

How to call bullshit on a guru

The longer I’m in this profession of lecturing and writing, the more I worry about becoming one of those guru asshole types. You know who I’m talking about. People who talk as if they’re always right, never wrong and lecture to people as if they are morons and are too stupid to do in a year what the guru could do in a day.

Frankly I hate these people. I always have. And it’s ironic that this is what I do for a living now.

I do my best not to sound or be like one, but I admit I can use your help.

When I’m hired to speak or teach, people want me to be the know it all genius expert, even though I’m not.  I’m an expert, yes, but I’m far from perfect. But since I get hired to be a know it all expert all the time, it’s easy to eventually believe your own PR.   I’d rather not have this happen.

Here’s my list of ways you can help me detect bullshit, my own or in other expert/guru type people. I promise I’ll never get mad if you do. Having good people ask tough questions forces me to think about what I’m saying and learning to be wise is essentially what I’m in all this to do.

Here’s my list:

• Ask “have you done this yourself?” Most gurus haven’t been practitioners in a long time. It’s easy to forget the difference between giving advice to do X and actually doing X.  And the longer its been since they’ve done X, the easier X will seem to be. Of course, just because a guru hasn’t done it doesn’t mean they’re wrong, it just means they might need to ease up on the arrogance, or seek out more examples.
• Ask “How do you know what you know?” Phrases like “studies say”, “I have seen”, “the leading theory is” are all possibly bogus phrases. What study? Where did you see this? Who says it’s the leading theory? Don’t let an experts assumptions not sound like assumptions.
• Ask “When is the theory you are advocating wrong?” Nothing works all the time. A smart person is aware of the limitations of any idea or practice. Ask them to explain the alternative of their position, and when they might take it.
• Look for admissions of mistakes and failures. Someone who never admits they are wrong is dangerous. If they’re so smart, and they’ve never failed, it just means they’re a coward. But if they’ve failed and never talk about it, they project an unreal image of what is to be a human being. It’s harder to learn from aliens than humans, I think. Ask for stories of mistakes and failures, their own or others. This will force any true guru into open and honest territory where they can be of greater use to you.
• Ask “Why do so many people fail at this?” A wise person will answer this with some acknowledgment of how hard the thing is to do.  But there is an ego trap in this question: I once heard a famous software consultant say, in response, “because not enough people follow my advice”.

Things not to do:

• Find a factual error and treat it like discovering gold.  Factual errors are everywhere. Many good books contain them and it’s hard as a writer to sort through the origin of every statement or fact. The existence of a mistake does not mean the theory or premise of the author, or lecturer, is wrong. It indicates a mistake in research, which just about all popular research has. It drives me nuts when someone finds I misquoted someone, or got a fact wrong, and jumps to assume all of my quotes and dates are wrong. You can criticize someone’s research but still buy the premise and theory, as some facts are less important than others. More important, look for gurus who make changes to their work when they learn of mistakes and that their work grows from it. (Just fyi, there is a list of mistakes from Myths of Innovation up here, that will go into the next edition).
• Use an expert as your negative stepping stone. This is the definition of a heckler. They want to steal thunder and use someone else’s platform as a launching point for their own.  This rarely works as it doesn’t earn real fans. Critiquing, especially harsh venomous criticisms, is always easier than creating. I think in life you score points for being insightful and building on what people say, not tearing it town. If tearing something down is necessary to build your theory, that’s fine, but people passionate about tearing down often forget that second part.

What other points would you recommend to authors and experts who want to avoid becoming jerk gurus?

Can a consultant be of use in one day?

A few weeks ago Ze Frank had an interesting post about the challenges of short term consulting.

If the client and I do a good job on defining goals of the consultation before I visit, the answer is yes – a consultant can absolutely be of use in 8 hours, or even less.  Sometimes an hour is enough – they’re paying for my experience and perspective, and if they have a clear problem they are facing and can describe it well, I’m a cost effective way to reach a quicker resolution.

But on occasion I find myself in an environment where there are too many cultural issues or nuances for me to be effective. This means I’ve failed to explore the needs beforehand. I hate this for many reasons, but sometimes it happens despite my efforts.

There are three situations in particular that makes one day consultations hard:

• I’m hired for reasons other than I’m told.  The person hiring me only grants me their perspective, and I only learn of the other perspectives when I arrive in a room and watch them get played out in my presence. To be extreme, the dude bringing me might be Darth Vader, but I think he’s Yoda until I’m an hour in the meeting and realize I don’t agree with him, or his reasons for bringing me in at all.
• I’m hired by the wrong person. If the issues are truly with the VP of Products and his organization, but I’m hired by the VP of Marketing, and they don’t get along, my efficacy is likely limited to her sphere of influence. As an outsider I have no real power other than influence with whom I’m allowed to speak to.  If I can’t talk to the VP of Products the best I can do is advise on how someone else can work with him or around him.
• Consultants can not make change happen no matter what you pay them. Sometimes leaders know there is a tough decision to make, but as a group are struggling to make it, and thus want outside advice. No matter how good I am at what I do, I can’t make big decisions for any company that hires me. I can suggest, argue, prove, provide context, give insight, inspire, motivate, entertain and make recommendations, but I do not work at the company. When I leave they still have the same burdens of living with their choices as they did before I arrived. Consultants enable through insight, but they can’t do the actual thing. If they expect me to somehow make and live with the decision for them, or make a tough choice go away, it’s impossible for them not to be disappointed.

The difference between two days and one is enormous. A second day gives a night for observations to grow into better questions, and suspicions into hypotheses. There’s often a chance to get a drink or dinner off the record, and get the background you need that wasn’t provided officially or even by the person who hired you.

On the whole, writing, speaking and teaching are better deals for myself and my clients than consulting. There are fewer risks, and the transactions and expectations are clearer to everyone. It’s easier to see the value of what they are paying for.  If I’m brought in to talk and it goes well, there is a natural sense of what else I can do for them in a consulting capacity.  Then even if the consulting engagement is just for one day, we all have the benefit of what we’ve learned from the talk working to help each other get the most from each other.