What is better for a company, success or failure?

At first blush this may seem like a no brainer, of course success is necessary for a company to survive. What I am addressing is the idea of risk taking and the concept of being too afraid of failure to take a chance on greater success. Think of it as playing a game of blackjack, I remember a saying I once heard and that is that the brave hit on 16 the stupid on 17. I always liked this idea as it shows there is a fine line between being brave and being foolish.

What is ironic is that just about every company was founded on a strong element of risk. The idea that they could do something better or fill some need within the marketplace. Given the high risk of failure associated with starting a business it is safe to say that risk is a part of the game and you can't help but notice how risk adverse companies become as they mature. The larger a company becomes a very interesting contradiction arises, not only do they become risk adverse, but senior management wants to see a continuation of the rapid growth, associated with early years of success.

As a marketing and communications professional, we are often tasked with walking that tight rope between success and risk taking. I have seen two types of individuals in marketing and communications. Ironically, the ones who tend to have the longest tenure in an organization are the ones who take the fewest risks and as a result deliver the smallest possible return. Again ironically they are able to demonstrate to their higher ups activity which they then interpret as success. It is obvious that activity is not success.

The individuals who bring true success to any organizations are the ones who chart the course that will most likely result in real sales growth. This is usually through the result of an aggressive and yes at times risky program. Sometimes even great programs fail and that is the nature of the beast! A good marketing person looks back and tries to find out why they failed and builds off of that lesson for future plans. A bad marketing person, someone who is risk adverse, seeks to avoid any and all blame for the program and thus learns nothing but to avoid risk and avoid blame.

The fact of the matter is that a good dose of failure is like a refreshing breath of air. There is a great deal to be learned from success. But success can breed arrogance and the misconception of invulnerability. What is worse is the fear of failure can make people avoid a chance at success unless they believe the probability of failure is virtually zero which in the real world is not really the case.

I would argue that good marketing and communications people have no great fear of failure. While logically they would want to succeed, they make their decisions after calculating the risks and deciding if they want to move forward based on the risk/reward ratio. A great number of mediocre people take the path of least resistance and only go the route that virtually assures them of success. Even if that success results in tepid results which will only have an incremental meaning and will have no long term impact on the growth or success on the organization. These are the people who thing in the immediate short term and have no long term vision.

The answer to the question in my opinion is that while success is necessary for a company to thrive, the fear of failure can inhibit and organization from achieving true success. Real leaders and successful people are the ones who fought the tide and realized that there was a better way and that it is worth taking a risk to achieve it. They don't reach for the low hanging fruit and they realize they don't know it all. By doing this, they achieve great things and set standards for the rest of us to follow.