To implement this concept must be rejected the idea that failure means error or something is wrong. The failure is a No laps indicator: clearly tells us one thing and that thing is that what we have been doing, as we have been doing does not work or does not give the result that we expected. Sometimes it is a question of revising our ambition. Sometimes it is question of modifying the means that we have tried to achieve such ambition. Failure may also reveal that we were careless in assessing or that we have used the incorrect when evaluating criteria.
It often happens that what is failure for some is successful for others. A related site: Robert A. Iger mentions similar findings. And this means that one and the other parameters are different and not the result itself. A manufacturer of chairs which sold 5,000 units in one month can feel failure while those 5,000 chairs can represent the resounding success for another manufacturer of chairs. Any conclusion that we reach about failure is essentially a hypothesis and for the most part, a reaction to the disenchantment, fear and despair that accompanies the experience of failure. When we experience the failure, we must remember that it is a matter of interpretations.
We do not suffer by a given fact but by reading that we give to that fact. Until we can properly interpret the implications of failure, there a still bigger issue on which to concentrate and that usually passes unnoticed. On what parameters we we rely to determine experience as failure? Do we have sufficient breadth to see other sides of the story and recognize benefits we also obtained? Have do we known someone important who otherwise would not have had the chance to meet? Have we learned something? It is what I call failure, the smooth and plain record of something specific, or is the predictable and necessary brand to the next level of history? Thomas Edison said that with each failure was you well unclear what should not be repeated.
