I read an article a few months ago in the Washington Post that bothered me (that I just spent an hour digging up) Howard Schultz’s ‘nightmare’: How his first big gamble outside Starbucks ended in defeat describes the Starbucks founder and likely 2020 presidential candidate’s failure to turn around the Seattle Supersonics (full disclosure: I am not voting for Howard Schultz for President). The article begins by stating that “Schultz is seriously exploring an independent bid for president, promoting himself as a problem solver who can use his business experience to fix the nation’s politics.” Then, it positions his failed attempt to save the SuperSonics as evidence that maybe he is not quite the problem solver he claims to be — maybe, because of such a failure, he’s not such a great candidate for President of the United States.

So what’s wrong with this?

The underlying assumption that because he wasn’t able to succeed at a highly risky venture his candidacy should be disqualified.

To be fair, the article is relatively impartial and provides an honest account of Schultz’s relationship with the SuperSonics. However, the title and introduction do, no matter how subtly, frame Schultz’s failure as a reason to discount, or at least re-consider, his viability as a presidential candidate. It makes you as a reader think — “Is he qualified to be President even though he has failed in business before?” or “He must not really be a very good leader if he has failed.” Now, I am not so concerned about this particular article’s subject matter. What I am concerned about is its larger message. If we are harping on the failures of someone this successful, what does that signal to the rest of us?

People in the startup community often glamorize failure. You can find countless books and blogs preaching about failing fast and often — that failure is a necessary step to success. While I do not necessarily agree with romanticizing failure, I do believe that in order to achieve something ambitious — you will have to come into contact with failure at some point. An investor turning you down, a product malfunction, a bad customer review — or for Howard Schultz, the failure to keep the SuperSonics in Seattle. Failure, although not something you should seek, is an inevitable part of the territory. In fact, short-term failure can be a great investment in long-term success.

Yet, for people hailing from more traditional industries, failure is not always seen in such a nice light. In the non-startup world, failure is generally viewed as final. People are more critical of failure and see it less as a badge of honor and more as a stigma: “If you are so talented, why did you fail?”

“If Schultz couldn’t keep the SuperSonics in Seattle, how could he run the country?”

This mindset creates an environment that discourages risk taking. Fear of failure is elevated to such a height that no one wants to take a chance and innovation is stifled. Yet, even the most successful founders and investors will fail more often than not.

If the price tag of failure comes with the harsh judgement that you’ve somehow done something wrong by not succeeding on 100% of your endeavors, it will become much more difficult to encourage people to take risks and apply themselves in starting a company, building a new product, etc.

If we want to encourage smart and ambitious people to break the mold and leave the comfort of brand name companies, prestige and a low risk of experiencing any failure, we may need to shift our attitude in terms of how we frame failure. If not, we risk losing a huge chunk of innovation capital. To get the most out of Americans from all backgrounds we need to stop stigmatizing failure. And no — I’m not saying everyone gets a trophy. But, we should make a determined effort to create a culture which celebrates ambition and challenges individuals to take worthwhile risks — not the opposite. America needs innovation and for innovation to exist — ambition, risk, and failure are all ultimately necessary.