Definitions are kind of problematic. In our community, "bad idea, well executed" is also a maybe - not a "fail" - on succeeding - as by definition if you're ex

Definitions are kind of problematic. In our community, "bad idea, well executed" is also a maybe - not a "fail" - on succeeding - as by definition if you're executing well you know when to pivot and aren't afraid to do so, or you are simply succeeding despite a bad idea[1], or are doing what it takes to push it through. Also I'd like to point out that the definition of executing well is almost begging the question. To answer the question "Was it well-executed?", we apply the heuristic "Did they succeed? get numbers up? generate sales, investment, etc..". Then we are only 'testing' our own definition and every successful company will be "well-executed" and vice versa. I'm not sure how to improve these definitions, but it's important to realize that asking how well a team is executing is problematic. You would need a definition of "execution" that lets you point out teams that are executing well and failing, before you had a concept of 'executing well' that is useful and not just a proxy for 'succeeding.' [1] Plenty of big, multibillion dollar product categories (McDonald's for one, two year mobile phone contracts for another), are a really bad idea. If either category didn't exist, I doubt an investor would think you could convince people to like it, on a national scale.