A few people are afraid of good ideas, ideas that make a difference or contribute in some way. Good ideas bring change, that’s frightening.
But many people are petrified of bad ideas. Ideas that make us look stupid or waste time or money or create some sort of backlash.
The problem is that you can’t have good ideas unless you’re willing to generate a lot of bad ones.
Painters, musicians, entrepreneurs, writers, chiropractors, accountants–we all fail far more than we succeed. We fail at closing a sale or playing a note. We fail at an idea for a series of paintings or the theme for a trade show booth.
But we succeed far more often than people who have no ideas at all.
Someone asked me where I get all my good ideas, explaining that it takes him a month or two to come up with one and I seem to have more than that. I asked him how many bad ideas he has every month. He paused and said, "none."
And there, you see, is the problem.
I agree–it takes many ideas to beget good ideas, and the bad ones most likely outnumber the good ones. When certain former colleagues used to "what if" marketing ideas I offered, I used to remind them that .300 hitters ended up in the hall of fame.
But I am also a trial lawyer, and .300 hitters in trials end up unemployed. So how to reconcile these two competing realities? Putting ideas through gauntlet of colleagues who are smarter than you are, testing ideas out on test audiences, refining and running through the gauntlet again. And then standing up in front of a jury and putting your idea to the ultimate test. Creating a compelling story and a compelling way to tell it entails risk. That is why trials are unpredictable.
What is NOT the answer? Trial by numbers, the mind-numbingly predictable, follow-the-play-book-and-do-things-safely approach that so many litigators bring to the table. Because if you follow the playbook, you will end up like the "someone" who is "the problem" in Seth Godin’s post.