What SERE training taught me about learning design.

What "survival, evasion, resistance, and escape" (SERE) training taught me about learning design.

The theme of "safe places to fail" came up again in a conversation I had yesterday.

It got me thinking: Some of the most valuable training I've experienced wasn’t necessarily about 𝘯𝘦𝘸 skills. Rather, some were about applying skills we 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘸—but applying them under pressure—and seeing where they held up, and where they didn’t.

Back in my Navy days, I went through SERE training (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). The goal wasn’t to “experiment” with new techniques or brainstorm new survival strategies in the moment. It was to put learners inside a realistic, high-stress environment and apply 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 for navigating a given scenario. (In this case, one of having been captured by hostile forces.)

The learning objective was largely experiential. And the value wasn’t just in practicing the techniques. It was also in seeing firsthand how those techniques held up (or didn’t) when stress, fear, hunger and fatigue set in.

That’s another dimension to the kind of space I think about when we talk about "safe places to fail" in corporate learning.

𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬, 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞-𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬—𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭—𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥-𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬?

Because if the first time someone gets to “practice” is in the field, or on a live project, or in front of a client, I'd argue that’s not training—that’s trial by fire. And while some folks thrive under pressure, we may be leaving a lot of learning on the table when we skip the realistic 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 aspect of it.

"Safe places to fail" don’t need to be fancy simulations (although those are great when you can swing them). Sometimes, it’s as simple as building real-world scenarios into your training (or building training experiences into real-world scenarios)—ones where wrong answers are expected. And where they trigger a ripple effect that learners can 𝐬𝐞𝐞, 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐱.

The point, I think, isn’t just to “embrace failure” as a tagline of corporate culture. It’s to make sure failure is experienced in training so it doesn’t happen in front of your customers or in the field.

So, here’s that question again: In what ways does your team get the opportunity to safely experience failure?

If you’re not sure, that could be a clue.