Gordon Segal, founder and CEO of Crate and Barrel, says lack of wisdom is the reason his store got off the ground.
“We didn’t know anything about retail,” Segal recalled. “I had grown up in the restaurant business, so I knew about service but not about retail. We didn’t know a market from a markdown. We didn’t know anything about importing. In fact, if we weren’t 23 and totally lacking wisdom, we would never have done this. You just go ahead with your passions, and you rush forward without a great deal of thought,” Segal reflected…
“We were truly a counter-culture story of the 1960s,” Segal said. “We literally turned over packing crates, stacked up the merchandise and went into business. We just thought that was nothing special. Of course, everyone walked in and was amazed that these two young kids were starting this business, that we could find French pottery and Swedish glass and Danish flatware and bring it to a small, little street in Chicago called Old Town. It was really crazy, when I think back, that we felt that we could import product into a little 1,700 sq. ft. store.”
Makes you wonder: How many others have succeeded because they didn’t know the rules? Because they didn’t realize that they were doing things they weren’t supposed to be doing?
We’re always taught to look before we leap, but it’s interesting to hear about the Segals of the world — those who succeed by rushing forward without thinking.
But doesn’t wisdom lead to success? Sure, it often does. But sometimes the winners are those who don’t have a lot of wisdom. Look at NFL quarterbacks. Routinely the best ones aren’t the brightest.
All quarterbacks drafted into the pros are required to take an I.Q. test—the Wonderlic Personnel Test…Of the five quarterbacks taken in round one of the 1999 draft, Donovan McNabb, the only one of the five with a shot at the Hall of Fame, had the lowest Wonderlic score. And who else had I.Q. scores in the same range as McNabb? Dan Marino and Terry Bradshaw, two of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game.
Maybe these quarterbacks succeed in part because they don’t have the highest IQs. Maybe they go with their gut instead of overanalyzing things.
Now, I don’t want to sound like I’m celebrating ignorance. Leaping before you look isn’t the best way to, say, invade a foreign country. But if you’re doing something with a little less downside — like starting a business — maybe you’re better off ignoring all the naysayers who tell you that you need to spend tons of time and money on planning, researching, testing, educating yourself, studying the competition, etc. Sometimes there’s real value in not worrying about what you don’t know and just putting something out into the world.
David Andersen
on 07 Jan 09How many others have succeeded because they didn’t know the rules? Because they didn’t realize that they were doing things they weren’t supposed to be doing?
How many have failed?
History is written about the winners.
Jeremy Ricketts
on 07 Jan 09@David Anderson- But if you never take the risk, you can never win, right? I think what this blog post is speaking to, is the types of risks people take. The point is that calculated risks are safer, but often pay off less.
The people or companies that break the mold sometimes do so because they just didn’t know what the mold was (or that there even WAS a mold). There are so many stories like this. Disney, Pixar, Microsoft, and smaller businesses that open up shop in the “wrong” area or fashion that takes hold because someone just didn’t understand how ridiculous they looked. It’s true that while the vast majority fail, the risk takers win and win big.
ML
on 07 Jan 09“How many have failed? History is written about the winners.”
True, David. But many who followed “the rules” have failed too.
Cory
on 07 Jan 09Uh, isn’t “ignore the naysayers” an instance of wisdom? Success stories are pretty inconsistent in lots of ways, but I highly doubt “hey we did dumb things” is going to be a common attribute. What is a common attribute is that the successful people worked very hard, recognized opportunities when they appeared, and kept the faith through hard times, and this story is no different.
And in fact, the story explicitly mentions where Segal and partner looked for wisdom, just not in the usual places (I guess it’s hard to find wisdom in Europe or something?)
Steve Jobs
on 07 Jan 09Stay hungry, stay foolish
Alex
on 07 Jan 09“History is written about the winners”
Maybe if more people were confident enough in themselves to share their failures, that’d be true.
I really like this piece, Matt. I firmly believe that with smart risk-taking skills and the ability to try and fail correctly, naivety can be a HUGE strength. I’m not immediately drawn to the obvious conclusion because it’s not obvious to me. I’m not immediately turned off to a possibility because it’s failed before.
Want to teach a kid not to stick a fork in a light socket? Let him do it once. He’ll never do it again. Tell him not to stick it on a light socket? Now you put the idea in his head, he’ll do it for sure.
Michael Long
on 07 Jan 09According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first year and 95% fail within the first five years.
Most primarily because they didn’t understand their markets, had no idea of how to actually run a business, or because they weren’t prepared financially.
Leap before you look makes a great story, but most of the time you’re simply jumping off a cliff. Chance favors the prepared mind.
Michael
on 07 Jan 09They did know about running a business. They worked hard, they had great taste and they saw an advantage in changing supply practices. If they thought they didn’t know anything, it was because they were naturals.
ML
on 07 Jan 09Most [small businesses fail] primarily because they didn’t understand their markets, had no idea of how to actually run a business, or because they weren’t prepared financially.
What percentage of businesses that do understand all this stuff still fail anyway? And what percentage of businesses that spend time and money on planning and preparing would have been better off devoting those resources to actually trying something and iterating instead?
David Andersen
on 07 Jan 09I’m not saying that people who follow convention don’t fail or that risk taking can’t be immensely rewarding. And yes, you can avoid quite a bit risk and still ‘win’. It all depends on the context.
There is a bias, however, when we point to success via unconventional means and conclude “that’s the best/only way to do it.” It is more complex than that and we kid ourselves that simply being contrarian is enough. It creates a false sense of security.
C&B was not destined to succeed simply because they flew in the face of convention. It probably helped but it certainly couldn’t have been the only reason or even, I doubt, the key one. Luck had something to do with it too. Right idea at the right time executed by capable people who overcame many obstacles.
Read The Myth of Innovation by Scott Berkum for more interesting ideas on this.
George Anderosn
on 07 Jan 09It seems the more successful quarterbacks might possess a different, one could argue more important, sort of intelligence than is measured by the Wonderlic Personnel Test.
Logan Leger
on 07 Jan 09It’s always been a curious thing to me why professional athletes can be so incredible at what they do, yet are horrifying when doing other things—e.g. interviews.
A few years ago, I was helping a researcher weed through relevant information. I came upon an article about pedagogy and Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences. It blew me away because up until that point I had never heard of it, but it makes sense.
For those of you unfamiliar to Gardner’s Theory, let me break it down: There are several domains of intelligence, and each human has a specific domain. Athletes fit into one, artists into another, scientists in yet another. You can read more at the Wiki article.
I think you’re on to something here. Getting Real, huh?
Anonymous Coward
on 07 Jan 09“Sometimes there’s real value in not worrying about what you don’t know and just putting something out into the world.”
But you don’t know ahead of time, do you? Because sometimes (and probably more often than not) “not worrying about what you don’t know” has no value and your risk is unknown. It’s silly to claim that starting a business has little downside. Some sorts of businesses yes, but most, no.
My wife wants to open an art gallery. Should she just ‘put something out into the world” or should she work to understand the current landscape and then make a best effort? This isn’t to say she can’t attempt to be innovative, but it would be foolish to try without being informed, especially if the upfront work will mean the difference between success and failure.
This is an informative and interesting post, but it suffers from oversimplification.
David Andersen
on 07 Jan 09The AC comment above this is from me.
John Sheehan
on 07 Jan 09The NFL Quarterback Wonderlic scores is an awful data point to use. Using one year and relating it to two arbitrary selections from the past is not even close to a big enough sample size to derive any relevant information. Classic Gladwell with his usual “Anecdote is fact” analysis.
ratchetcat
on 07 Jan 09It doesn’t hurt to be good, but I think you’re far more likely to find success if you’re able to put a lot of ships to sea. For most of us, that means ventures which are 1) cheap to launch and 2) cheap to scale.
Be cheap. Start a lot of small things going.
Killian
on 07 Jan 09Gladwells new book ‘Outliers’ (maybe you have seen the ads ) has a nice chapter on a long term tracking study done at Stanford where they selected the highest IQs in the region to see how far their smarts got them.
It turns out you only need a certain level of (IQ measured) smarts to be successful and being the smartest of the smart is far from a ticket to great success. Gladwell argues that a random set of people selected above a certain acceptable threshold IQ would have produced more success stories than simply selecting the top .001%.
Anyway, I think that relates to the QB intelligence test and in another way to the really smart people who plan their business very well only to eventually fail, and vice versa with non-planners who succeed.
There are many factors into making a success or a failure- 37S is right to make the counterpoint against longterm planning in software development… The absence of long term planning in say building architecture or municipal planning might not be so savvy! Although I am open to some examples if they exist….
Martin
on 07 Jan 09I’ve read 100’s of articles and books on business and one of my main conclusions is that there are no rules to being successful in business and there are really no limitations that cannot be overcome. You just have to pick a style that suits you and go for it.
kenny
on 07 Jan 09What defines a “failed business”? Does it have to survice for 30 years (or whatever) to be considered successful?
What if you build a business around a temporar need for something, and the need goes away within 2 years, taking your business with you. Did you automatically fail then?
If you are happy with what you achieved, I’d say you didn’t fail. Some things work, others doesn’t, it doesn’t automatically make it a failure. Especially if you learnt something along the way.
Gayle Bird
on 07 Jan 09My mentor always used to say:
“Breakthroughs are made by people who don’t know you can’t get there from here.”
I love that.
david
on 07 Jan 09You can’t make a generalization from a simple fact of luck.
And that quote of the quarterbacks is just because they work with the body and that is so easy as being an animal, humans think.
I’m being realistic.
zephyr
on 07 Jan 09Well, at least now we know that what works for quarterbacks doesn’t necessarily work for presidents ;-)
Super B
on 07 Jan 09Don’t confuse wisdom with knowledge or intelligence… the latter can sometimes be a crutch, whereas the former is required for successful endeavors…
Michael
on 07 Jan 09Gayle, wouldn’t a truer quote be, “breakthroughs are made by people who don’t think you can’t get there from here when you can.”? They’re certainly not made by people who think they can do something when they really can’t.
ML
on 07 Jan 09Don’t confuse wisdom with knowledge or intelligence
Good point, I probably should have used one of those terms instead.
GeeIWonder
on 07 Jan 09IQ Testing
1) Most of those tests are trainable and, I would suggest, trained. A higher IQ test score might be the mark of a man fighting for a spot.
2) Quarterbacking is more about vision and that internal timer nowadays I think. It used to be more about smarts, but now, if the jockey (coach) doesn’t get the plays he wants called, he just switches stallions.
Good post. Sounds like something Gladwell might’ve written.
BTW, I don’t buy the “if we weren’t 23 and totally lacking wisdom, we would never have done this” for a second, but that’s on him, not you.
pwb
on 07 Jan 09I think there’s a learning here but I’m not sure exactly what it is. Certainly we see a bunch of pro’s tackle something and get no fail because they can’t let go of their pre-conceptions. And amateurs being wildly successful precisely because they didn’t have the “wisdom” to see the folly in their actions.
I think a better approach is to have pro’s who have demonstrated the ability to let go of their pre-conceptions.
Daniel Prager
on 08 Jan 09For spontaneity and creativity - e.g. brainstorming, creative writing, improv, quarterbacking? etc. - leap before you look is the way to go. Being cautious in these situations is too stifling.
However, for high-risk activities - e.g. flying planes, leaping out of them, peforming surgery, defending a client in court, etc. - I would recommend looking first.
Viva situational dependence!
DavidK
on 08 Jan 09Re: IQs of quarterbacks. This caught my eye because it reminded me of something I was talking about with a friend after watching a lot of sports recently (Olympics, then football, then basketball): despite the (perhaps true) notion that some athletes have low IQs, elite athletes of all kinds by necessity are students of their game/sport.
You simply can’t be at the top of your game (choose your hall of fame QB) and not have a vast knowledge of the game its tactical and strategic histories, your opponents, how they play, what they do in particular situations, etc. You may call it ‘gut,’ but it’s also a matter of internalizing hundreds of hours of game play, even more game tape study and practice.
I don’t know how relevant IQ is to football (or anything, for that matter), but I can’t recall ever seeing an elite athlete interviewed about his profession and thinking “this guy is dumb.”
Daniel Gibbons
on 08 Jan 09The quarterback stats are interesting, particularly if you read The Blind Side by Michael Lewis. Dan Marino is singled out very convincingly in Lewis’s discussion of how the left tackle transformed the game, even as most observers gave “star quarterbacks” like Marino all the credit.
Not sure how this is relevant to the “leap before you look” point, but I find it fascinating nonetheless, and The Blind Side is definitely worth a read!
Lawrence Krubner
on 08 Jan 09This post, in particular, strikes me as an example of the kind of post that wouldn’t have appeared on Signal versus Noise before 2007. I am irritated by the hedging: “Now, I don’t want to sound like I’m celebrating ignorance.” What is the author really arguing?
This is really awful, the kind of stuff that is common in the type of popular business book which I’m careful to avoid:
“How many others have succeeded because they didn’t know the rules? Because they didn’t realize that they were doing things they weren’t supposed to be doing?”
Popular stuff, but also such a stereotype that it is useless as advice; the kind of thing the ex-hippie teacher says to you in high school. When I’m in Barnes and Noble and I pick up a business book and I read 2 sentences like that, I put the book down and move on to something better.
Signal Versus Noise was where the early “Getting Real” philosophy was hashed out. Somewhere around 2004 or 2005 and 2006, the stuff on this blog was pretty much the cutting edge of intelligent methods for implementing agile processes. But nowadays, there is more noise and less signal.
If this was 2005, instead of this:
“Now, I don’t want to sound like I’m celebrating ignorance.”
we probably would have gotten something like this:
“In fact, the very notion of what constitutes intelligence has long been a matter of hot debate. Some researchers thought intelligence was a single, measurable thing. Other vehemently disagreed, pointing out that a single metric of intelligence may vary from culture to culture and that conventional testing doesn’t predict performance very well. It seems that once again, context matters. Out of this debate, two theories based on cognitive context emerged: Robert Sternberg’s triarchic theory and Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences.
... Gardner also proposed that intelligence has many different facets and that a single measurement was insufficient. He saw intelligence as a combination of different abilities and skills and so defined seven facets of intelligence, with different talents related to each:
Kinesthetic – sports, dancing, do-it-yourself projects, woodworking, crafts, cooking”
Pragmatic Thinking And Learning, Andy Hunt, page 161.
Drew
on 08 Jan 09“Maybe these quarterbacks succeed in part because they don’t have the highest IQs. Maybe they go with their gut instead of overanalyzing things.”
Setting aside the problems with this usage of “intelligent”, of which there are many, please don’t buy into the popular delusion that “unintelligent” people make better decisions than “intelligent” people. “The gut” has no direct line to some mystical source of insight. Intuition is simply subconscious reasoning, and is therefore only as reliable as the individual’s subconscious is informed. Much of the world is counter-intuitive, if the observer’s intuition does not have the proper foundation for judgement.
“Now, I don’t want to sound like I’m celebrating ignorance.”
No, it’s worse, you sound like you’re promoting willful ignorance and the unfortunately increasingly common belief that knowledge isn’t necessary for good decision-making, that we simply need to act “from the gut” and with enough conviction and we’ll have the right answer.
Faiz
on 08 Jan 09This can be argued in both directions. But the thing is, if you want to do something in your life, do think about it a little bit and JUST DO IT! If you are lucky, you may get through. Unless, just say it wasn’t my time and try doing something else… It is better than sitting and thinking about it later like “God I could have done it then” :)
BrianJ
on 08 Jan 09At first read I felt this topic was a feel-good story and mostly gibberish. Without wisdom, knowledge, preparation, and understanding one must rely on luck and passion. There are multiple roads to success, most travel the paths more widely used. There are obvious reasons why those paths are chosen. Those who use the less traveled roads must be lucky and have great passion but they shouldn’t be frowned upon for reaching the same goal. Good, thought-provoking read. Thanks.
CJ Curtis
on 08 Jan 09If you have a passion for your work, and you strive to be better, things have a way of falling into place. Not for everyone, but NOTHING happens to “everyone.”
There’s a big difference in ignorance and stupidity.
SuatE
on 10 Jan 09Don’t confuse wisdom with knowledge or intelligence… the latter can sometimes be a crutch, whereas the former is required for successful endeavors…
Carolyn Wood
on 11 Jan 09If I don’t pick at the exact words you’ve used and focus on the spirit of what you’ve said here, I believe this has proven true in my life. I’ve entered into a number of projects (and taken some other people along for the ride a few times) based on a drive to do them, and an intuitive sense that the results were going to be great. Each time, there were people around me saying, “But you (or we) can’t do that!” and the results were (in their little niche) spectacularly successful and exciting. I should add that they all involved a LOT of work. :)
This discussion is closed.