Are you driven by success or failure?

[Stanley]

A good friend of mine goes into hyper mode if he experiences failure. Doesn't mater if he's fishing or deer hunting. He is motivated by failure. When he is successful he he becomes complacent and
disinterested. If he catches a limit of fish he becomes disinterested in going again. If he kills a good buck it bums him out and turns him off to try and get another one the next year.

I am just the opposite, success motivates me. If I hang one on the wall I am motivated to hang another one on the wall. If I catch 10 fish I want catch 15 fish the next time. I have a hard time understanding my friends motivation.

What drives you success or failure?

[Uncle Lou]

Interesting question, and I would be confused if you hadn't provided the examples.

I am motivated to succeed, but I do not fear failure. I consider failure lesson learned on my way to success in hunting and fishing.

In business and life, I try to minimize the size of any failure.

[xpauliber]

Definitely motivated by success. If it's worth my time, I want to be the best I can be at it. Becoming the best you can be doesn't happen overnight, it comes a little at a time with each success validating that you are moving in the right direction.

I do get motivated by failure in a small way though. I use my failures more to analyze why I failed and pinpoint how I can correct what is lacking.

[phade]

Stanley - I wonder if you conclude "drive" as the same as "motivation"? I suspect so. If that's the case, the question may be more applicable as to say "what motivates you?" rather than define it in a limited scope as to a success or failure.

I can speak with some authority on the subject, as I hold an M.S. in Strategic Leadership and actively work in such capacities in the program I run for a Fortune 500 company.

There are two type of people on earth - those who are intrinsicly and those who are extrinsicly motivated. Science has in large proven that all else the same, that intrinsicly motivated people are more successful. Extrinsic people can be motivated, but only up to a certain point or level (based on the measurement). A good example of this is giving people raises at work - much to many people's shagrin, giving a raise (beyond the industry norm) is the last thing a smart company would do to motivate and engage its employees. People who naturally want to do a good job are going to outperform those who want a raise to increase their willingess to be productive. After a while those extrinsic people plateau.

Outside of the academics, I personally believe that elite talent is driven internally by one thing: [glow=red]Ego.[/glow] Ego has a very negative connotation in today's world, and that is a shame to a degree. But, face the facts, ego drives elite talent. People can try to argue with an example against it, but to be in a place of leadership or an elite talent, you have to have an ego.

I've met and regularly interact with people who make 7 figures a year salaries. I've also interacted professionally and personally with one of the richest men in America, a multiple billionaire. I've watched the billionaire fail to tip a golf course attendant. Literally, for no reason, service was the usual high-end quality. But, no tip. This same guy, donates ungodly amounts of money to charitable causes and private citizens in need publicly and privately. A world-renowned kid's hospital is named in his honor.

Trust me, the ego is the same off the book as it is on the book. Some of them are super nice, super down to earth, and some are flat out rude, disparaging, and worse. And, then beyond that, there are some that seem rude, but are actually conversing and interacting (normally to them) at such a high level of expertise, that you misread it.

A good example would be Dan attempting to talk about the value of hunting buck beds early season to a regular joe hunter who really only thinks the rut is the only quality time to score a mature buck. Dan's motives are nothing but positive and helpful, yet, the average joe hunter sees it as bragging, wrong, and thinks that's not really how you kill a big buck.

I guess to parlay that to hunting terms, the elite talent is probably motivated interally and similarly has ego as a major source of "drive" if you will.

[JoeRE]

Great stuff Phade.

I am constantly looking to improve what I do inside and outside hunting. I am motivated by success and failure both but only because there is no 'perfect' success...you can always do something better than you did it before. So I guess to answer Stanley's question I am motivated by failure. I demand efficiency from myself and it is definitely internally motivated...that's ego in a way I guess although I also detest the modern societal connotations that go along with that word.

[magicman54494]

Great question! Without giving it a lot of thought I would say I'm motivated by both. Failure motivates me because I want to be successful so it makes me dig a little deeper. Success, on the other hand, is motivation that I am on the right track or making progress.
There is no doubt I am intrinsicly motivated.

[phade]

I suspect Stanley is intrinsic and his friend is extrinsic.

That's where the difference is, not necessarily success or failure per say.

[magicman54494]

I suspect Stanley is intrinsic and his friend is extrinsic.

That's where the difference is, not necessarily success or failure per say.

I don't agree. Maybe his friend, once successful to a level he hoped to achieve, is satisfied.
I don't think intrinsic neccessarily = failure driven or vise versa.

I know in my life once I succeed or feel I have mastered something I feel the need for a new challenge.

[Darin]

Im very driven by success. Your examples match my attitude towards an outdoorsman. Like most of us here, we wont ever have ENOUGH bucks on the wall. Right? Thats my attitude.. Each trophy, or good experience in the woods only motivates me more and more for the next time.
(If I catch my limit of fish, I want to catch my limit of fish the next time. IF not, bigger fish!)

I do get motivated from failure though. I try to figure out how I failed, and fix that particular mistake ASAP.

Good topic!

[phade]

I suspect Stanley is intrinsic and his friend is extrinsic.

That's where the difference is, not necessarily success or failure per say.

I don't agree. Maybe his friend, once successful to a level he hoped to achieve, is satisfied.
I don't think intrinsic neccessarily = failure driven or vise versa.

I know in my life once I succeed or feel I have mastered something I feel the need for a new challenge.

You may be assuming success/failure is the measure. It's not.

Stanley "puts a good buck on the wall and then wants to get another" = intrinsic statement
Friend when "successful becomes complacent and disinterested" = extrinsic statement.

Complacentcy is a major by-product of external motivators (it's not unique to it, but it's common). So is being bummed with success.

The friend is likely extrinsic because he reaches a "plateau" with a kill (being bummed) and slips back to the norm before needing the external motivation again to succeed. It's not the failure that's the motivator; its the external conditions that failure brings with it.

Another good sports example is Randy Moss (external) vs. Jerry Rice (internal).

*Edit I should say that the majority of people on earth are extrinsic. I don't recall the exact numbers, but somewhere around 70-30 is the ratio. I also should state that when I say extrinsic, that means they display extrinsic behavior and tendancies more so than intrinsic. People are not purely one or the other, but 99.99%+ people display one much more than the other (making two camps essentially), if that makes sense.

[Crazinamatese]

I just enjoy being in the woods on my stand. I don't force myself to hunt if Im not in the mood to be out in the woods either. Then I have days that I just want to be out there all day. Most of the time days like that I come out empty handed. But, Im satisfied I spent quality time on stand and got to enjoy the solitude of nature. If I forced myself to be there, I leave aggravated and my morale sinks because I am pushing myself hard to launch an arrow thru any deer that comes in close. Killing isn't what its all about to me. So, for me personally, I take successes and failures in a way if I felt I enjoyed my time in the woods, or felt like I should have stayed home, rather than if I fill a tag or not.

[Dewey]

I am driven by both and always try to keep a positive attitude either way.

When I have a string of bad hunts I just keep telling myself that today could be the day a slob buck will walk out in front of me and I truly believe that every day otherwise I wouldn't be out there.

When I am successful it tends to make me be even more determined than ever to continue and keep the success going. I still take time to let it all soak in because those memories are what we are all out their trying to accumulate and I don't want to stay too focussed looking ahead without enjoying the moment.

With that being said I am totally fine with having an opportunity to only kill one buck per year with my bow since I hunt outside the CWD zone. I guess if I did hunt in multi buck units I would feel like I am being greedy and stealing an opportunity for someone else to kill a buck if I shot more than one. If I am succesful I will immediately begin planning for the next season and keep tabs on my next targets until then.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

[Stanley]

I suspect Stanley is intrinsic and his friend is extrinsic.

That's where the difference is, not necessarily success or failure per say.

I don't agree. Maybe his friend, once successful to a level he hoped to achieve, is satisfied.
I don't think intrinsic neccessarily = failure driven or vise versa.

I know in my life once I succeed or feel I have mastered something I feel the need for a new challenge.

You may be assuming success/failure is the measure. It's not.

Stanley "puts a good buck on the wall and then wants to get another" = intrinsic statement
Friend when "successful becomes complacent and disinterested" = extrinsic statement.

Complacentcy is a major by-product of external motivators (it's not unique to it, but it's common). So is being bummed with success.

The friend is likely extrinsic because he reaches a "plateau" with a kill (being bummed) and slips back to the norm before needing the external motivation again to succeed. It's not the failure that's the motivator; its the external conditions that failure brings with it.

My friend killed this buck in 2010, 150" Don't know why he was bummed, can't relate. Buck sat in his freezer for over a year before he decided to mount it. He said he was going to hunt in 2011 and not kill a deer. He did just that.

Hard to put a label on some people, intrinsic, extrinsic or just eccentric?

[cwoods]

Both for me. It depends on the circumstance.

[magicman54494]

I suspect Stanley is intrinsic and his friend is extrinsic.

That's where the difference is, not necessarily success or failure per say.

I don't agree. Maybe his friend, once successful to a level he hoped to achieve, is satisfied.
I don't think intrinsic neccessarily = failure driven or vise versa.

I know in my life once I succeed or feel I have mastered something I feel the need for a new challenge.

You may be assuming success/failure is the measure. It's not.

Stanley "puts a good buck on the wall and then wants to get another" = intrinsic statement
Friend when "successful becomes complacent and disinterested" = extrinsic statement.

Complacentcy is a major by-product of external motivators (it's not unique to it, but it's common). So is being bummed with success.

The friend is likely extrinsic because he reaches a "plateau" with a kill (being bummed) and slips back to the norm before needing the external motivation again to succeed. It's not the failure that's the motivator; its the external conditions that failure brings with it.

You're associating success with being bummed. I'm talking satisfied. These are two very different things. In order to make the assumptions you are making you must also be making assumptions as to the reasons why they did something. Whether a person decides to duplicate a success is not necessarly a measure of the type of motivation. I would like to throw the word "bored" into the mix. What if a person becomes "bored" achieving the same goal over and over? Where does this person fit in?
I know you are speaking in generalities and probabilities. That I can agree with. Great conversation!