Being Successful versus Being Right

There was a question I received from a friend a long time ago, that is deceptively simple:

"Do you want to be right, or do you want to be successful?"

Now, I suspect I know what you're thinking:

"If I'm right, I'll be successful."

The answer to that is "maybe", and I want to dig more into that, but first...

There is a spectrum of options from "always doing the right thing" to "I'll do whatever it takes to be successful". If you are in the "I'll do whatever it takes" camp, that makes you a sociopath. "Always doing the right thing" is a great goal, but it comes with a huge load of baggage around your moral and cultural views. Now, back to being right.

It is also a true that being "right" isn't binary. Virtually everything in life is about probabilities, and you're just trying to ensure that you're following the path of probabilities that have the highest chance of making you successful.

This is my list of ways you can be right and not successful. Hopefully they're useful to you.

You're right, but you're too early.#

I call this the "Webvan Problem."

A great example of this is on-line grocery ordering with delivery. It's obvious today that people want to order groceries on-line for delivery. Instacart has $1.5 billion in revenue. It was founded in 2012.

What you may not remember is Webvan. It was founded in 1998 and IPOd in 1999 with a resulting value of $4.5 billion. By 2001 it declared bankruptcy.

They were right. Online ordering and grocery delivery was a nascent demand that could create a succesful business. But they were a decade too early, and so they weren't succesful.

You're right, but the probabilities go the wrong way#

I think my most important writing (if any of it is important) is what I wrote on Decision Making. In there I reference Annie Duke's book Thinking in Bets, and she has a fantastic example. It's a case of making the right decision, and having a bad outcome. I'm not going to lay it out here, because you should read her book, but I call this:

The Seahawks Problem.

You're right, but you can't convince others#

I call this the "Ignaz Problem."

In 1847, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis implemented the radical idea that doctors should wash their hands to reduce infection and mortality. He is described as "savior of mothers."

In 1865 he died of gangrene in a mental hospital, likely the result of being beaten by guards. It wasn't until 20 years later that Pasteur's Germ Theory could explain the cause that he was truly vindicated.

But, he did himself no favors.

Some accounts emphasize that Semmelweis refused to communicate his method officially to the learned circles of Vienna,[27] nor was he eager to explain it on paper.

This example is so egregious that the human tendency to reject new information that conflicts with established norms is call the Semmelweis Reflex.

You're right, but you don't have any alternatives#

I call this the "me problem."

There was a bad impact to the company I work for. It took a few hours and people did all sorts of things that I disagreed with, and have complained about in the past.

But, as I thought about it, what would I have had them do? I'm not exactly sure what that would be.

When the only outcome of testing your hypothesis is "I was right" and doesn't include "... and this is what we then do", just makes you a jerk.

You're right, but you alienate people#

Finally, this is the "Political Problem."

I'm calling it that, because of the results you get when you search for things like "most successful jerks in history" and you look at the results. They are dominated by people who were successful because what they created was devisiveness (i.e. they are 'dividers') and then capitalized on that. The net result is an increase in misery overall. The stellar achievers in this category are:

  • Nero
  • Stalin
  • Mao Zedong
  • Andrew Jackson

Of special note, excluding these 'dividers', your searches for "people who were successful despite being jerks" is going to yield a much smaller list than "people who were successful". Even including them, I would argue that they are mostly firmly in the 'sociopath' camp.

You're right, but the outcome is horrific#

There are plenty of people who had the right-of-way in a car accident, or a car-pedestrian accident, that were right and they're still injured. Being right isn't some sort of super-suit of armor. You can be right, and still be dead. Being right won't be any consolation to your survivors.