Don’t study the successes

There's a reason articles and books promising the top [3, 7, 10] traits of successful [people, startups, companies] are often full of it: survivorship bias.

Most books covering what breeds success or creativity or genius look at those that have made it, then figure out what they have in common. 

Vision. Grit. Teamwork. BHAGs. OKRs. Mentors. Brand purpose. Waking at 4am. THAT's the key to success.

But when you just study the winners, you have no idea if the losers have these traits too. What if the 13 major retailers that went bankrupt last year also had great teamwork? How many failed entrepreneurs also have grit? What crappy ad campaigns had a bold media strategy? 

Even if only one or two failures share the traits of the successes, that would blow a hole in the theory.

When you only study survivors, you get survivorship bias. You learn what successes have in common, but not what separates them from failures. By comparing successes & failures, you can tease apart traits that made a difference.

While there's much to learn from "best of" lists and "secrets of" books, enjoy them with a grain of salt.

(Another thing winners have in common: they all have vowels in their names! Must be a key to success.)

David McRaney. Survivorship bias. 5.23.2013. You Are Not So Smart.