Dear Entrepreneur, Your Obsession with Success Stories Will Lead You Down The Wrong Path; Focus On Stories That Talk About Failure Instead

Success is the celebrity keynote speaker of the business world; failure is the janitor quietly cleaning up after the party. Most entrepreneurs binge-watch victory—unicorn valuations, glossy exits, founders on magazine covers—while treating failure like a scandal to be buried. Yet if you strip away ego and emotion, failure is a far richer data set than success. Success teaches you what happened to work once, in one specific context. Failure exposes what almost always breaks, across industries, cycles, and personalities. It is the difference between learning from a lucky coin toss and dissecting a plane crash. One is entertainment. The other is survival.

Organizational learning research has been warning us about this imbalance for years. Reviews of the literature from scholars such as David Motley show that the most actionable lessons in firms often come from failed projects and near-misses, not from smooth wins. A 2016 survey of studies on “learning from failure” concluded that failure experiences tend to improve decision quality, innovation performance, and future success probabilities precisely because they force teams to question assumptions that success left untouched. Failure does not just add knowledge; it rewires judgment.

The problem is that markets, media, and even business schools are structurally biased toward stories of success. Stanford’s business faculty have argued that when we only study winners, we systematically under-estimate the role of luck and overestimate the power of any one strategy or personality.

This is classic survivorship bias: we hear from the survivors and assume their path is replicable, while the thousands who used the same tactics and died leave no narrative behind. As Jason Cohen bluntly put it, advice from successful founders is often polluted by randomness; the failures with the most useful warnings rarely get a microphone.

Failure, by contrast, is the most honest feedback mechanism capitalism has ever invented. When a business collapses, the causal chain is often brutally clear: mispriced risk, weak governance, poor capital allocation, fragile unit economics, overconcentration, or hubris. In interviews with entrepreneurs who shut down ventures after at least three years of operation, researchers found that failure forced them to identify specific decision errors—overexpansion, ignoring customer feedback, misreading regulation—that they vowed never to repeat.

These post-mortems generated concrete checklists and guardrails that became the foundation of their next, more resilient ventures. Recent work on entrepreneurial “re-entry” reinforces this pattern: founders who return after a failed venture often outperform first-time founders because they carry scar tissue that filters their optimism.

They negotiate tougher covenants, diversify revenue earlier, and design leaner cost structures. A 2024 holistic study of entrepreneurial failure showed that the learning loop—shock, emotional recovery, structured reflection, behavioral adjustment—is what transforms a collapse into an asset. Failure is not automatically instructive; it becomes powerful when entrepreneurs deliberately interrogate it.

Neuroscience and behavioral economics add another layer. Humans are wired to pay more attention to losses than gains—a phenomenon known as loss aversion. The pain of losing a dollar is psychologically stronger than the joy of gaining one. Smart entrepreneurs weaponize this bias: they use the emotional intensity of failure to encode lessons deeply. Studies on learning dynamics find that, in many contexts, people adjust their behaviour more strongly after failures than after successes, especially when the failure is salient and feedback is clear. Failure doesn’t just inform you; it sears itself into your operating system.

But business culture keeps telling the opposite story. We quote success books like sacred texts, binge TED talks from unicorn founders, and create entire conference circuits around “how I did it”. A more honest title would often be “how I did it once under conditions you cannot replicate.” In reality, what entrepreneurs urgently need is the equivalent of aviation’s incident reports: detailed, brutally honest accounts of what went wrong, why, and how to avoid it. When planes crash, investigators publish hundreds of pages of analysis. When startups die, founders often publish a single, sanitized Medium post—if anything at all.

Consider how regulators and risk managers treat failure versus how founders do. In sectors like aviation, nuclear energy, or healthcare, serious failures trigger systemic learning: procedures are changed, checklists updated, training redesigned. Management scholars Tucker and Edmondson showed that organizations that openly analyze errors reduce accident rates and improve performance precisely because they refuse to bury failure. Yet in entrepreneurship, where personal ego and investor optics dominate, we still reward the carefully curated success narrative and punish raw honesty about what broke.

For African and emerging-market entrepreneurs, this obsession with success is particularly dangerous. Operating environments already carry currency volatility, political risk, and infrastructural fragility. In such ecosystems, failure is not a theoretical construct; it is a statistical probability. When local founders only consume success stories from Silicon Valley or sanitized “Africa Rising” case studies, they import optimism without importing risk literacy. A better curriculum would prioritize detailed autopsies of failed local banks, collapsed telcos, hollow housing schemes, busted agribusinesses, and frozen digital lenders. Each wreckage maps the specific interaction between policy, behavior, and market structure.

Read Also: Dear Entrepreneur, Consistency Is the One Drug You Are Afraid to Take, Yet It’s the Only One That Works

We also underestimate how much failure filters out the noise in a business model. Success can be the result of timing, macro tailwinds, or unsustainably cheap capital. As long as the music is playing, weak models look sophisticated. The positive numbers act like narcotics, numbing founders and investors to structural risk. Failure, by pulling away the liquidity and goodwill, brutally separates what was real from what was merely fashionable. When the tide retreats, to borrow Buffett’s line, you find out who has been swimming naked. Failure is the tide; success is the swimsuit.

Organizational-learning scholars highlight that failure is especially valuable because it reveals what they call “near-miss information”: errors that almost always remain hidden during periods of success. Near misses—almost defaulting, almost losing a key customer, almost triggering a regulatory breach—are rich with warnings. When companies treat them as lucky escapes rather than data, they waste the best learning opportunities they will ever have. Wise entrepreneurs treat every near-miss like a crash that happened in a parallel universe and ask: what sequence of decisions made this even possible?

This is not a romantic defense of failure. The academic literature is clear: failure is psychologically painful, can trigger shame and withdrawal, and, if mishandled, can reduce future risk-taking and innovation. But that is precisely why we must build better rituals and institutions around it. High-quality post-mortems, psychologically safe cultures, founder peer circles, and investor norms that encourage honest debriefs are not luxuries; they are competitiveness tools. The greatest failure, as one study put it, is failing to learn from failure at all.

For individual founders, the practical implication is clear: curate your reading list around wreckage, not just winners. Read about Kodak more seriously than you read about Apple. Study the fall of WeWork, the implosion of Theranos, the slow decay of once-dominant banks, the quiet shutdowns of promising African fintechs. Replace “10 habits of successful CEOs” with “10 ways CEOs quietly destroy shareholder value.” Success books often sell inspiration; failure case studies sell risk maps. An entrepreneur who knows where others bled can plan where to step.

Media platforms, including those focused on African markets like SokoDirectory.com, have a responsibility here. The clicks will always favor triumphant headlines, but the long-term value to readers lies in deep, uncomfortable autopsies of collapsed ventures, distressed sectors, and exposed frauds. One recent analysis on Soko Directory framed failure as “the university nobody wants to attend but the only place real transformation happens,” arguing that collapse strips away illusions and forces clarity. That tone—unflinching yet constructive—is exactly what our entrepreneurial discourse needs more of.

Investors, too, should interrogate their own bias. Pitch days, demo days, and conference panels overwhelmingly showcase success or at least the performance of success. What if LPs demanded that fund managers publish anonymized case studies of their worst investments each year, with a focus on process errors rather than founder shaming? What if term sheets included explicit protocols for post-failure learning, not just liquidation waterfalls? In aviation, regulators require after-incident reviews; in venture capital, we mostly require a narrative that preserves reputations.

At the policy level, governments seeking to build “startup nations” must normalize entrepreneurial failure as part of the ecosystem, not as evidence of moral weakness. Bankruptcy laws that permanently stigmatize founders, tax regimes that punish restructuring, and political rhetoric that only celebrates winners create cultures where failure is hidden. That secrecy is toxic. It deprives younger founders of the very case studies that would help them design more robust ventures. Economies that want innovation must make it socially and legally safe to talk frankly about failure.

The psychological recovery of failed entrepreneurs is another under-explored asset. Studies tracking founders after venture collapse show that those who are supported to process the emotional trauma—through mentoring, peer groups, or coaching—are more likely to re-enter entrepreneurship and to build stronger companies the second or third time. Failure that is integrated becomes wisdom; failure that is suppressed becomes baggage. If you want more resilient founders, you need more honest conversations about what it feels like to lose everything and start again.

So what does this mean for the individual entrepreneur reading a Financial-Times-style analysis on Soko Directory between client calls and cashflow spreadsheets? It means you must aggressively reverse your information diet. When you see a story about an IPO, ask: where is the article about the IPO that never happened? When you hear a podcast with a billionaire founder, ask: where is the founder who liquidated after 12 brutal years, and what can they tell me about bank covenants, labor disputes, or silent partners? The market is already oversupplied with success porn; you must seek out failure literature like contraband.

The paradox is that founders who deliberately study failure often increase their chances of success. They price risk more intelligently, design redundancy into their systems, negotiate better downside protection, and diversify suppliers, customers, and funding sources earlier. They are less seduced by hype cycles, less likely to confuse revenue for resilience, less likely to mistake investor enthusiasm for product-market fit. In short, they behave like long-term stewards, not short-term performers. That behavioral shift shows up in survival curves, not in social media engagement.

Ultimately, failure is not “better” than success in a moral sense; it is simply more information-dense. Each collapse encodes dozens of wrong turns, blind spots, and flawed assumptions. Each bankruptcy represents a fully paid-for seminar in what not to do. In a world of uncertainty, that map of landmines is more valuable than another glossy story of someone who happened to find a safe path once. If you are serious about building something that lasts, you must learn to chase the autopsy, not the applause.

Dear entrepreneur, the corpses on the business battlefield are not there to scare you; they are there to brief you. Read the wreckage of bankruptcies, broken partnerships, and blown-up product launches with the hunger of a starving wolf. Let each failure—yours and others’—update your mental models, refine your risk radar, and discipline your ambition. Success seduces; failure instructs. And in an unforgiving market, instruction is worth far more than seduction. Read the wreckage. Rewire your strategy. Rise unbreakable.

Read Also: Dear Entrepreneur, Emotion Is the Enemy of Empire, and Calm Logic Is the Only Architect of Destiny