learning through play

Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes – Oscar Wilde

Sometimes learning the hard way can be one of our most memorable learning experiences. For me, one of those experiences happened in my early 20s. I needed to give a short presentation to a small audience of mentors and fellow students, but instead of preparing for it, I decided to wing it. In my head I thought I was ready, but on stage I was like a deer in the headlights. This experience was certainly an impactful way to learn that winging it wasn’t my strong suit, but was that really the best way to learn?

If experience is what we gain from making mistakes, wouldn’t it be better to create an environment where we can make lots of them? If we had an environment that celebrated mistakes, wouldn’t that accelerate our ability to learn and grow?

We can think about learning experiences across two dimensions. The first has to do with participation (either active or passive), and the second with connection (either absorption or immersion). For example, we could absorb knowledge through reading a book (active) or watching a YouTube clip (passive), or we can get immersed in an experience like attending a lecture (passive) or playing a game (active). For me the question is whether we learn enough through active immersion, and with that I mean risk-free active immersion and not ‘learning the hard way’. If playing (i.e. game-based learning experiences) gives us the opportunity to learn from mistakes, shouldn’t we be doing it all the time?

Learning through play is like learning to ski. You simply can’t get the hang of it by reading, listening or watching—you need to get out there and do it!

In the same way, leadership development needs to be about creating experiences where leaders can make mistakes in a low-risk environment. In her article “Why Leadership Development isn’t Developing Leaders,” (HBR October 2016) Debora Rowland argues that leadership development needs to be experiential. She argues that “if leadership development begins in the head, leaders will stay in their head.” Instead Rowland suggests that leadership development should be about “constructing self-directed experiences for participants that replicate the precise contexts they need to lead in. In such experiences the group dynamics at play in the room become the (at-times-uncomfortable) practice arena.”

Reading the latest book on leadership is not going to turn us into good leaders. We need to make mistakes, we need to get feedback, and we need to practice — why not in a risk-free environment?