Is Failure Good For Success?
The standard definition of failure as a “lack of success” does not take into account its impacts on reforming processes of thought, approaches to preparation, and ideals like tenacity and commitment (Attarzadeh and Siew 235). As opposed to creating the impression that failure is oftentimes part of a process that is yet to be refined, this is a definition that creates the impression that failure is the ultimate result from which nothing can be realized. Interestingly, significant feats are commonly realized after failure (Knott and Hart 618). Practical examples, like Twitter’s success after Odeo’s collapse, make a case for the argument that success hardly comes before failure. Ideally, failure lays the foundations for success through its contributions to character development, lessons on mistakes, and reality checks.
To begin with, failure’s contributions to success are evidenced in its significance as a character development tool. On this account, character denotes distinctive qualities such as commitment, mindset, courage, belief, and industriousness, among others. Such qualities generally factor into preparedness, especially when challenging encounters are anticipated. As Attarzadeh and Siew (236) write, failure provides the benchmark against which characters can measure up while crafting a mechanism to ensure their success in future encounters. It encourages them to take better stances. It also influences characters to better understand the roles and results expected of them and the best of ideals to which they can commit as they endeavor to play their roles (Elig and Irene 621).
The other quality for which failure ranks as an attribute that can ultimately lead to success is defined in the lessons from which people benefit when they make mistakes. To this end, it functions as the result to which people can make reference when reviewing the chances of success in relation to defined processes (Elig and Irene 621). For instance, it can show the chances of an investment’s success in certain circumstances given the previously recorded performances (Knott and Hart 618). The lessons previously learned could, for one, contribute to the determination of the investment’s viability or the nature of tweaks that need to be made to ensure success. Lessons could also relate to the above-cited concept of character development to imply that characters can develop on account of painful experiences that pose as reminders of the actual roles expected of certain characters.
Lastly, failure is good for success because it provides reality checks. These are basically reminders of the actual nature of events, processes, and markets among many ideals that define and or contribute to the project for which failure may be recorded (Attarzadeh and Siew 237). This argument draws its basis from the fact that continued strings of success oftentimes create comfort zones from which the making of mistakes is easy. Such zones can easily obscure missions and visions by hindering awareness and commitment to ideals that can foster tenacity for positive performances even in the face of challenges (Knott and Hart 619). For illustration, it is important to make reference to Nokia: because the company operated from a comfort zone and failed to innovate, it ended up losing its position of dominance to Apple. Having failed in these respects, it is likely that it may commit to innovation for future products.
To conclude, it is evident that failure is good for success because of its contributions to character development, its lessons on mistakes, and its reality checks. These are attributes that can enable the remodeling of projects. They can also contribute to the development of ideals that define the nature of roles that people play as their characters grow. The many success stories which show how gains are often made after failure support the argument that just as people have embraced success, they should embrace failure.
Attarzadeh, Iman, and Siew Hock Ow. “Project management practices: the criteria for success or failure.”Communications of the IBIMA 1.28 (2008): 234-241.
Elig, Timothy W., and Irene H. Frieze. “Measuring causal attibutions for success and failure.” Journal of personality and social psychology 37.4 (1979): 621.
Knott, Anne Marie, and Hart E. Posen. “Is failure good?” Strategic Management Journal 26.7 (2005): 617-641.