That a group doesn't treat failure the same way as an individual is practically tautological in the sense that the power of a group vis a vis outcome (whether ~

That a group doesn't treat failure the same way as an individual is practically tautological in the sense that the power of a group vis a vis outcome (whether ~success or ~failure) is precisely that it's not an individual, but a proxy, "holding" it. In other words it makes no sense for a "group" to admit failure - that's why you put the group together, and that's why, generally speaking, not everyone gets fired when shit hits the fan. What is the insight here?