4 ms·

Very few business success stories credit luck with being a root cause. But in real life luck (or "chance" , if you prefer) plays a part, sometimes a significan

Very few business success stories credit luck with being a root cause. But in real life luck (or "chance" , if you prefer) plays a part, sometimes a significant part. It was lucky that John and Paul went to school together. It was lucky they got on together and became good friends. Thanks to that luck ee got the Beatles. Of course it (usually) takes -more- than just luck, but dig deep enough and its there.

simonh 3y ago
The tricky side of that is how to distinguish between luck and opportunity. Loads of people might be friends at school with someone with a great complementary talent, or have a connected uncle, or happen to start a business in a sector that about to really take off. They may even think about the opportunity and how to take advantage of it, but for whatever reason they don’t. So there are multiple factors. Some initial lucky opportunity, the insight to spot it, the willingness to take a risk on it, and hard work to see it through.
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  Frequency and quality of opportunity is also a luck factor.
plasticsoprano 3y ago
Someone doesn’t listen to How I Built This. One of Guy’s questions at the end of each interview is what percentage of their success was luck and pretty much all of them from Michael Dell to Drew Houston and everyone in between put luck at a far greater percentage than any other attribute.
WalterBright 3y ago
I recommend reading a biography of the Beatles. Don't overlook the many years they spent playing dive bars day and night, honing their skills as a band. Brian Epstein, a nobody, recognized opportunity when he met the Beatles.
- chefandy 3y ago
  The Beatles kind of sucked at the beginning of their career. That they became as good as they did was a shot in the dark— not the ability to divide which ones would become great. The are so many incredibly talented musicians in the world— if anybody could consistently choose the winners, record company finances would be way different. Of the bands that get signed to record labels, the percentage that become the "it" acts is microscopic.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > The are so many incredibly talented musicians in the world If there are so many, then they aren't incredible. It takes a lot more than talent to be successful in music. More than musical talent, too. One has to also be able to create catchy tunes, play them, fit in with your band, pick the right look for the band, the right name, packaging, etc. etc. etc. I recommend reading up on what Brian Epstein did for them. The songs of the Beatles (and Michael Jackson) are consistently better than the songs of their contemporaries. > the percentage that become the "it" acts is microscopic Are the 99% simply not that good? I enjoy music from all kinds of bands, but the quantity and consistent high quality of the Beatles' and Jackson's work are standouts.
    - chefandy 3y ago
      No. The music industry in the US has never been a meritocracy. There are tons of artists who record labels deem worthy enough to sign but they never promote. A whole lot of it comes down to luck. It seems like a lot of your viewpoint is based on am assumed consistency that doesn't exist.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        Not a meritocracy? Whitney Houston bowled them over, and the music label knew they'd struck gold in signing her. I don't think the music industry is run by fools.
  - CPLX 3y ago
bostik 3y ago
> But in real life luck (or "chance" , if you prefer) plays a part, sometimes a significant part. This reminds me of a story I heard nearly 20 years ago. (Told by a UCLA staff member.) In the early 2000's, a UCLA professor invited a successful entrepreneur to give a guest lecture on one of their business courses. During the lecture he was asked what made him the success and the fortune - and the answer was distilled to less than seven words: "Get lucky. Then stack the deck." He went on to explain that the best way to maintain a competitive edge was to make it as hard as possible for anyone else to try to follow his steps or to circumvent his position. But first you had to get lucky enough to afford it. He was not invited again. Too honest and demoralising for the students.
- mdnahas 3y ago
  The Dean of UVA business school was heard saying “Don’t compete unless you have an unfair advantage.”
- beebeepka 3y ago
  Maybe the professor didn't like the "sabotage competition" part. I know I didn't. I do believe luck/chance is the most important ingredient.
  - wmoser 3y ago
    It may not be sabotage necessarily. I’ve talked to MIT professors and they said one of the things they do at Sloan is emphasize gaining and holding a monopoly. Patents, trade secrets, etc. It’s the ‘moat’ that Warren Buffet and value investors look for in investments. If you do the work figuring out supports, methods, regulatory compliance, you’re not under any obligation to provide that information to anyone else. That could be construed as ‘stacking the deck’. I had a coworker that ran a firearms training company on the side and he had to let go one of his administrators because he was talking with his competition and casually telling them what sort of insurance they carried, what small business programs they had applied for, unexpected regulations they found that they had to comply with. All these things are publicly available but took a lot of time to research and money on lawyers etc. No point in helping your completion start on first or second base.
berniedurfee 3y ago
Being the right person in the right place at the right time can’t be taught. Yet, IMO, that’s the primary factor to being wildly successful. Knowing that you’re the right person in the right place at the right time ranks second. Taking advantage of the opportunity presented as the right person in the right place at the right time is third. Personality is fourth. Skill is somewhere below that. Ultimately, luck always sets the maxima. Though, this only applies if you’re measuring success by the amount of excess you can accumulate. You can live an incredibly fulfilling and happy life without any of the above if you set your own criteria for success to fall within the constraints of your particular circumstance.

simonh 3y ago

The tricky side of that is how to distinguish between luck and opportunity. Loads of people might be friends at school with someone with a great complementary talent, or have a connected uncle, or happen to start a business in a sector that about to really take off. They may even think about the opportunity and how to take advantage of it, but for whatever reason they don’t. So there are multiple factors. Some initial lucky opportunity, the insight to spot it, the willingness to take a risk on it, and hard work to see it through.

edmundsauto 3y ago
Frequency and quality of opportunity is also a luck factor.

plasticsoprano 3y ago

Someone doesn’t listen to How I Built This. One of Guy’s questions at the end of each interview is what percentage of their success was luck and pretty much all of them from Michael Dell to Drew Houston and everyone in between put luck at a far greater percentage than any other attribute.

WalterBright 3y ago

I recommend reading a biography of the Beatles. Don't overlook the many years they spent playing dive bars day and night, honing their skills as a band. Brian Epstein, a nobody, recognized opportunity when he met the Beatles.

chefandy 3y ago
The Beatles kind of sucked at the beginning of their career. That they became as good as they did was a shot in the dark— not the ability to divide which ones would become great. The are so many incredibly talented musicians in the world— if anybody could consistently choose the winners, record company finances would be way different. Of the bands that get signed to record labels, the percentage that become the "it" acts is microscopic.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > The are so many incredibly talented musicians in the world If there are so many, then they aren't incredible. It takes a lot more than talent to be successful in music. More than musical talent, too. One has to also be able to create catchy tunes, play them, fit in with your band, pick the right look for the band, the right name, packaging, etc. etc. etc. I recommend reading up on what Brian Epstein did for them. The songs of the Beatles (and Michael Jackson) are consistently better than the songs of their contemporaries. > the percentage that become the "it" acts is microscopic Are the 99% simply not that good? I enjoy music from all kinds of bands, but the quantity and consistent high quality of the Beatles' and Jackson's work are standouts.
  - chefandy 3y ago
    No. The music industry in the US has never been a meritocracy. There are tons of artists who record labels deem worthy enough to sign but they never promote. A whole lot of it comes down to luck. It seems like a lot of your viewpoint is based on am assumed consistency that doesn't exist.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      Not a meritocracy? Whitney Houston bowled them over, and the music label knew they'd struck gold in signing her. I don't think the music industry is run by fools.
- CPLX 3y ago

bostik 3y ago

> But in real life luck (or "chance" , if you prefer) plays a part, sometimes a significant part. This reminds me of a story I heard nearly 20 years ago. (Told by a UCLA staff member.) In the early 2000's, a UCLA professor invited a successful entrepreneur to give a guest lecture on one of their business courses. During the lecture he was asked what made him the success and the fortune - and the answer was distilled to less than seven words: "Get lucky. Then stack the deck." He went on to explain that the best way to maintain a competitive edge was to make it as hard as possible for anyone else to try to follow his steps or to circumvent his position. But first you had to get lucky enough to afford it. He was not invited again. Too honest and demoralising for the students.

mdnahas 3y ago
The Dean of UVA business school was heard saying “Don’t compete unless you have an unfair advantage.”
beebeepka 3y ago
Maybe the professor didn't like the "sabotage competition" part. I know I didn't. I do believe luck/chance is the most important ingredient.
- wmoser 3y ago
  It may not be sabotage necessarily. I’ve talked to MIT professors and they said one of the things they do at Sloan is emphasize gaining and holding a monopoly. Patents, trade secrets, etc. It’s the ‘moat’ that Warren Buffet and value investors look for in investments. If you do the work figuring out supports, methods, regulatory compliance, you’re not under any obligation to provide that information to anyone else. That could be construed as ‘stacking the deck’. I had a coworker that ran a firearms training company on the side and he had to let go one of his administrators because he was talking with his competition and casually telling them what sort of insurance they carried, what small business programs they had applied for, unexpected regulations they found that they had to comply with. All these things are publicly available but took a lot of time to research and money on lawyers etc. No point in helping your completion start on first or second base.

berniedurfee 3y ago

Being the right person in the right place at the right time can’t be taught. Yet, IMO, that’s the primary factor to being wildly successful. Knowing that you’re the right person in the right place at the right time ranks second. Taking advantage of the opportunity presented as the right person in the right place at the right time is third. Personality is fourth. Skill is somewhere below that. Ultimately, luck always sets the maxima. Though, this only applies if you’re measuring success by the amount of excess you can accumulate. You can live an incredibly fulfilling and happy life without any of the above if you set your own criteria for success to fall within the constraints of your particular circumstance.