Patterns of Failure

The first sentence from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina is one of the most widely quoted lines in all of literature. It reads: "Happy families are all alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

The line resonates because we generally see harmony and balance in all the happy families we know, while there are varied and complex sources of discord (miscommunication, infidelity, finances, personality, and so forth) in the unhappy examples.

The so-called Anna Karenina principle — conditions for success are standard and straightforward, while the conditions for failure are diverse and specific — seems self-evident, but is it the most practical guide to follow? Is success or failure the better teacher?

Lets's examine this through the lens of sales. The industry is saturated with frameworks that purport to increase the probability and predictability of revenue by typifying the attributes of a healthy deal.

Within B2B sales, MEDDIC is one of the most popular methodologies. It's an acronym that stands for Metrics, Economic Buyer, Decision criteria, Decision process, Identify pain, and Champion. This is a robust framework, and one I frequently reference in deal reviews.

But there's a subtle difference in the way people apply it. Some think of it as a success formula, while others view it as a mitigation plan.

People in the first category want to believe there is such a thing as a recipe for success. They are dispirited by the complexity of the deal process, and they seek comfort in the idea that there is a dependable glide path to the airstrip. They see MEDDIC as their fight plan.

People in the second category embrace the need to chart their own course, and they simply wish to avoid foreseeable dangers and diversions. They understand every deal happens in a unique context, and they relish the challenge of solving a singular puzzle. MEDDIC ensures they never lose sight of the most salient watch-outs.

The more complex the deal, the better the second group does.

Which takes us back to the Anna Karenina principle. Quite often, I would say, inverting the bad is more effective than exalting the good. Many of the best parents I know are animated by a vow never to repeat what they experienced as a child. Many of the best sellers I know recall the pain of having overlooked some retrospectively obvious warning signs.

Sales is a game of risk mitigation. It's a realm in which the top performers are constantly wondering "What might go wrong?" Patterns of failure are frequently more useful than patterns of success. Protecting against the downside can be more productive than seeking to replicate what worked well before.?

Suffering, unfortunately, is the most capable teacher.?