I’ve always been drawn to the concept of perfectionism. Not for what it does, but for what it doesn’t do.
That’s why exceptionalism exists.
A little biased here, but this archaic ZURB article summarizes it so well.
Now, to keep failing (and winning) in stride and honor!
Does everyone here believe in the power of failure?
I definitely do. However, there’s always a catch. Don’t forget to actually try to win. 
Love this.. I would argue that this stood out the most:
”I realized that my top team members weren’t perfectionists -they weren’t driven by a desire to do perfect work, achieve individual success and fit in. They were driven by a desire to understand themselves, challenge their preconceived notions, and think big by collaborating with others.”
I think so much of day to day satisfaction relies on doing work that makes you curious and gets you pumped. Fun 
I’ve been a victim of “analysis paralysis” before–and it definitely ties into the fear of failure.
This part, ”In it, Emerson advocates for individualism and encourages readers to avoid conformity and false consistency, and follow their own instincts and ideas.”? Super relevant to some of the possible drawbacks of AI.
You should aim to strike a balance between perfectionist and Yes-man. Seems related to this: “Negotiating this relationship (between details and vision) is a critical part of exceptionalism”.
Fully agree here. You have to still “try to win” (I consider this a part of perfectionism) while also being okay if something doesn’t work out (which means that you can get up faster).
I’ve always found myself perform better when I’m in it to win it, but not so much that too much stress clouds my decision-making abilities.
This becomes even more important when building software (making the wrong architecture decision can set you back dozens, if not hundreds, of hours)
The difference between causal thinking and effectual thinking is one of the trickier parts of that table I outlined.
Here’s the distinction:
→ Causal Thinking
Start with a clear goal and then figure out the best, most efficient way to get there.
Here’s an example: “We want to increase sales by 20%. What’s the cheapest, fastest path to achieve that?” This works when the future feels predictable, but it often fuels perfectionism because people get stuck optimizing the “right” path.
→ Effectual Thinking
Start with the resources and people you already have and see what you can create with them, letting goals evolve along the way.
example: “Here’s what we know, here’s who’s on the team, here’s what tools we have, what opportunities can we build from this?”
This embraces uncertainty, trial and error, and iteration …which is why it supports exceptionalism.
Put another way:
Cool article. Offered up a range of different reflections.
In the early 1990’s Peter Senge published a book called The Fifth Disciple. In it he mixes up organizational learning, systems thinking, talent management etc. It looks like a terrible business book from the naughties, but I read it two or three years ago and it’s amazing 
One thing Senge argues is that people who are really good at what they are doing and care about what they are doing exhibit something I think he calls “creative friction” (not to be confused with Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction 
). Senge suggests that talented people want to understand the problem fully, that they open up and engage with information even if it’s painful. They need to know, because only when you know you will be in a position to make meaningful improvements.
This is similar to Charles Eames who suggested that: the sign of a great designer is their willingness and enthusiasm to search for and identify all constraint.
To me therefore the willingness to fail means the willingness to learn, and I think the whole discussion about “failure” is a misdirect. E.g. according to Stefan Thomke more than 80% of all experiments fail to prove the initial hypothesis. But it’s not failure, it’s learning. And so the only failure should be if your’e not learning … 
Very well put! I haven’t been able to articulate this, but it’s a shorthand for something much more complex. Getting down into the ‘creative friction’ headspace is where real value starts to present itself. Identifying all constraints starts to build confidence that you’re executing on the best you have available to you.
Love this. Learning is winning!
Having worked for startups, and as a UX resource for VCs, I can say with great confidence that Effectual Thinking is how startups win the day, every time. The startups that get stuck on Causal Thinking sink all their resources into ‘the right way’ which ultimately force them into bleeding reources.
Reminds me of Taleb’s “antifragility”… some systems don’t just resist shocks or recover from them (resilience)…they improve when stressed.
Antifragility thrives on variability and mistakes. Instead of minimizing failure, antifragility assumes disorder is the norm and builds mechanisms to benefit from it.
This shifts the conversation from the attitude of the learner or designer, to the architecture of the environment they operate in.
Was thinking more about exceptionalism as a life growth stage, that in fact, it’s a more mundane concept if we look at it through the lens of Kegan’s adult development.
People shape their identity around external expectations. basically what others believe is “right,” “good,” or “successful.”
The drive for perfection often comes from wanting approval or avoiding criticism (not all the time, but I’d say this is a trap). Following the rules and measuring their worth through validation.
So exceptional comes from the willingness to learn and fail, to “author” your way to something unique. On a team that’s a general pool of people, only 1/3 will be on this path.
I’d like to believe I’m in the 1%, but who knows 
Systems of systems… most systems are in constant flux. This is a state that is hard to stay in, and it’s also not necessarily wholistic… you could be advanced in one way of being, and still struggle in others.
Ah- this makes a lot of sense. Originally, I figured that people residing in the systematic system typically stay there.
