How you explain failure is a key factor on your path to success
What’s your “explanatory style”?
Author Dan Pink writes in his book To Sell is Human that sales professionals face an “ocean of rejection” on their path to success.
Pink references research by University of Pennsylvania Psychology Professor Martin Seligman, which shows that people’s ability to bounce back in the face of so much rejection largely depends on their explanatory style — how they explain negative events to themselves.
People who “give up easily, who become helpless even in situations where they actually can do something, explain bad events as permanent, pervasive, and personal.” They tend to believe that the negative conditions will last a long time, that the causes are universal rather than specific to the circumstances, and that they’re the ones to blame.
Instead, after a negative experience trying to sell, Pink suggests that you ask yourself the following three questions and find a reasonable way to answer No to each one:
1. Is this permanent?
Bad answer: Yes. I’ve completely lost my skill for moving others.
Good answer: No. I was flat today because I haven’t been getting enough sleep.
2. Is this pervasive?
Bad answer: Yes. Everyone in this industry is impossible to deal with.
Good answer: No. This particular guy was a jerk.
3. Is this personal?
Bad answer: Yes. The reason he didn’t buy is that I messed up my presentation.
Good answer: No. My presentation could have been better, but the real reason he passed is that he wasn’t ready to buy right now.
As Pink notes, “the more you explain bad events as temporary, specific, and external, the more likely you are to persist even in the face of adversity.”
My reactions:
Explanatory style is a powerful idea — not just in the world of sales, where there’s naturally a lot of rejection, but in life in general.
I’ve learned that time and perspective are crucial factors in dealing with failure and rejection.
In the past year, I applied to the same prestigious fellowship program twice and was rejected both times. After the first time, I was devastated: I thought to myself: It seemed like a such a perfect fit, how could they not accept me?!
But my reaction to the second rejection email was more like: Well, it’s a great program, and I’d really like to be involved, but I guess this is a numbers game.
As I prepare to apply a third time, I’m much more objective and am thinking about the ways in which my first two applications might have fallen short, and what I can do differently.
And when I reflect on my experience being on the other side, making hiring decisions or evaluating candidate applications, I realize how much of the process can be influenced by bias, incomplete information, and whim.
Taking this broader view, and understanding that many of these decisions are guided more by intuition and probabilities than by logic and certainty has helped me appreciate how hard it can be to consistently make the right call.
Thanks for reading!
My name is Cheo (CHAY-oh) and I believe ideas can change the world.
If you like this post, you might also enjoy my Weekly 3 newsletter: each Sunday, I combine three ideas on one topic to help you think differently and be more creative. You can sign up here.
This story is published in The Startup, Medium’s largest entrepreneurship publication followed by +396,714 people.
Subscribe to receive our top stories here.
