Success Comes from Strengths and Capability–Prior Failure Is Not Required

An article in the most recent issue of Harvard Business Review has a title that asks an intriguing question. The question is related to what I’ve written before. So, principles from my prior writing warrant revisiting, repeating, and further explaining regarding the role of failure in eventual success.

The Harvard article is titled “Do You Really Have to Fail to Succeed?” Written by Daniel McGinn, a Senior Editor at Harvard Business Review, the article was published in Harvard Business Review’s July-August 2014 issue. Offering a bit of balance on the subject, the article begins by highlighting the value of responding to failure with resilience. Then, the article goes on to make the case against idealizing failure.

The answer to the article’s title question about failing is: no, you do not have to fail to succeed. This reflects both discussion from the Harvard article, as well as findings from my 25+ years of research into business success and failure patterns, which I have written about previously.

The Harvard article begins by mentioning books about the value of resilience—books like “The Upside of Down: Why Failing Well Is the Key to Success” by Megan McArdle“. After acknowledging the value of resilience, the Harvard article then make a good case against the importance of failure. It expresses concern that “triumph over disaster” is “now sometimes presented as a requirement”. It supports the failure-not-required view by pointing out that thinkers in education are “starting to question whether resilience and persistence are really the most important qualities to instill in kids.” And, while the article tells about aspiring to resilience, it also stresses avoiding trauma. Finally, the article’s last sentence says it so well: “What we really need is a pathway toward strengths and success that doesn’t require a near death experience…”

Thus, the article essentially seems to advocate the position that failure is not required for success. And, that is the position I have taken in my previous writing. My emphasis is upon business success and failure patterns, which I have been researching for over 25 years. My work essentially strives to build the kind of pathway the Harvard article calls for. This entails finding ways to avoid failure and achieve success by following success patterns.

So, based upon my research into the patterns, I’d like to reemphasize here that failure is not a requirement for success. I discussed this in my November 2011 newsletter “Is Failure Required for Successful Innovation?” And, much of what applies to successful innovation applies to success in business overall, and even to areas outside of business.

Based upon my research, strengths and/or capabilities are crucial. They are required for success. Strengths and capabilities may entail innate talent, or may come from learning and experience. Often, there is a combination of these. Passion can also be a strength in that it can enhance efforts to obtain the appropriate capability. And, success comes from building upon strengths and applying capabilities to achieve something.

Failure can play a role since it can be a way to learn and develop important capabilities. The knowledge and expertise gained through failure can contribute to future success. But, it is ever so important to remember that failure is not the only way to get that knowledge and expertise. Knowledge and expertise can come, for example, from being guided by someone more experienced, by being trained via a sequential process, by doing research, by learning from what happened elsewhere, and by taking smaller steps forward. Failure–especially disastrous failure–is not required.

Furthermore, failure can have serious downsides that are best avoided. For example, failure can entail huge financial losses, serious damage to reputation, and the dismantling of valuable operations. Damage from failure can often make success extremely difficult–in some cases, virtually impossible.

So, failure should not be idealized. It should be viewed as a way to learn, but not as a requirement. Some failures–especially smaller failures–can be a normal part of the learning process needed to build capability. Those failures generally should not be harshly punished. But, failure per se should not be encouraged merely for the sake of failing. Nor should failure should be rewarded. And, failure generally should not be treated as a requirement for success.

In conclusion, strengths and capabilities are needed for success. Failure is not required.