Succeeding is failing

Reading Chris Lind's post on expecting to fail in #Learning, #TalentDevelopment and #DigitalTransformation I was moved to respond but failed in writing too much for the comment line, or the post field so here we are.

We often call "mission accomplished" when we hit the passing grade is odd; we want 100% engagement at work, maximum performance yet somehow a 70% pass mark is ok for learning? Is the other 30% not worth it? Why was it there in the first place then? What impact does it have on applying the outcomes in other contexts? How do we learn the other 30%, which 30% is it? What decisions does it impact in my job/life if I don't know it, didn't demonstrate it,...?

The very act of learning is experimentation; learn-try-fail-learn-repeat. Failure, from outcomes of assessment, is a fundamental component in learning; born from stating a goal, knowing the start point, education to close the gap, practice, assessment and feedback. In my mind, the last 3 are arguably the most critical and tie directly to the expectations of an organization’s performance delivery, management, and the bottom line. Learning Experts comment here...

However, the enterprise learning ecosystem (internal L&D, content providers, HR and LearningTech, the business,...) does not have a great track record of doing that well. Its also challenge in academic settings too: the pandemic crises of value vs credential brand vs campus/online experience vs skill attainment vs academic freedom vs lifelong learning vs employment benchmark, etc. These were happening pre-Covid19 but much more quietly. 

The massive colliding interests from the #Education and #EnterpriseWorkforce domains provides rich better practices to learn from each others failures as educators. Why isn’t Blackboard or Canvas the LMS of choice in a tech company, or universities use Cornerstone or SAP Litmos, etc? Will there be a better mousetrap that connects the two universes?

Encouragement of learning is experimentation in measuring efficacy for the constituent learners. and to be INCLUSIVE, must be flexible in assessment, feedback, and practice to provide opportunity to succeed which might be back to first principles. Can we improve how we do what we do, with what we have? New tech does not always mean better tech.

If we think learning is failing at failing, lets restate the goal of what succeeding looks like, for learners, for outcomes, for assessment and evaluation. This is not we learning professionals getting permission to experiment (spend money) for AR, AI or other new techniques, fail and write off the expense. Its about the people we are "learning" to, and the stakes are high! At its most base, closing knowledge and performance gaps reduces fiscal risk to individuals, organizations, and the macro economy. It should be front of mind for every CFO, Provost and member of the Learning ecosystem. We've been down a big snake (or chute) and now we need to roll some dice and look for the next ladder.

Lastly as an aside, to help realize this, I believe that financial reporting of Learning has to change to allow L&D to be amortized as capital asset investment, not operational expense. One can do it philosophically, but when the chips are down and the balance sheet needs it, I've heard it said, "learning is the last thing planned, and the first thing cut."