I'm not sure I fully buy this argument.<p>First of all, it puts down failure as something inferior. Failure is a natural step to success. Calling it a no-brainer devalues its incredibly valuable teachings. I have a chance at being successful in my current start-up in part because of the issues I had in my previous one.<p>Secondly, it over-simplifies the definition of success. Is wandering the oppressive halls of a Microsoft really success? Sure, for Bill Gates, Microsoft is a success. But it didn't become a success through the oppressiveness of its halls - the most valuable game-changing moves happened long before it was a huge mega-corporation, when it was busy building things like MS DOS and Windows and setting up all the dominos to fall in the right place.<p>It's an interesting thought overall, but I don't really see the value of applying it so directly to business or careers.