There is a lot of talk about the importance of failure. People are encouraged to fail fast and fail often and are told that to be successful they need to fail more. We hear it said that we learn more from our failures than we do our successes. Maybe that is because we fail to examine our successes to extract the lessons and the learning. Too often we only debrief when something goes wrong, and we perceive there was a failure and generally we only consider it a ‘failure’ when there is a perceived “bad” outcome.
I think we put too much emphasis on failure and need to focus instead on striving. Striving to learn, striving to improve, striving to grow, striving to be a little better today than we were yesterday. Striving comes with the understanding that in the striving sometimes we will fail to accomplish a task, mission, or objective. When we do fail, it is an opportunity to learn from the experience and move forward better off for the learning.
Speaking of striving and learning, Robert Bjork PhD, a professor at UCLA, talks about the importance of “Desirable Difficulties” for learning. Andrew Huberman PhD, a professor at Stanford, has talked about the reality that if there is no friction, no struggle, there is no learning. The Challenge Point theory suggests that for us to grow and improve we need to train at the outer edges of our skill level. When we do that, we will encounter desirable difficulties, struggle, and friction. The research on Challenge vs. Threat States shows that if we see this type of training as a challenge instead of a threat it encourages approach behaviors and will influence our physiology in ways that enhance performance. This aligns nicely with the philosophy from Mitch Greene PhD of the importance of choosing courage over confidence, which encourages us to step into the challenge, and allows us to embrace the struggle and embrace the suck that sometimes accompanies that struggle on the path to learning.
Understanding that training and testing are different, then what exactly does “failure” mean in a physical training or performance context? Did the trainee accomplish a task in a manner that he or she can articulate was reasonable and lawful for them based on the totality of circumstances but ‘failed’ to accomplish the task the way you wanted them to, or the way you think you would have done it? Did they accomplish the task, but failed to use a taught technique to do so? Did they fail to use a technique exactly as taught? Did they fail to accomplish a task within an allotted time and if so, how is that ‘acceptable’ time limited determined? If your instruction is based on principles and concepts, then ‘failure’ becomes more of an abstract concept and may be difficult to define.
I disagree with the philosophy that we need to encourage failure in training. I think training needs to be a safe place to fail as long as we learn and grow from the experience. There is a difference, however, between failure being encouraged and failure being acceptable.
Let’s step away from the focus on failing, and shift the focus to striving and help the men and women we are train to develop strategies to embrace the challenge, the struggle, and the friction as part of the journey of learning.
Take care.
Brian Willis
Winning Mind Training – Providing practical training to law enforcement professionals in the areas of instructor development, Performance Enhancement Imagery, leadership and mindset.
The Excellence in Training Academy – A membership site for law enforcement trainers willing to invest in their ongoing professional development. No adds or commercials, just content. Join Now.
Address: