What happens when you throw out the rulebook—and let teams take a gamble on how they learn?
At DCo, we’ve always believed that real learning happens at the edge of uncertainty. So we asked ourselves: what would happen if we built a learning lab where teams had to choose between two risky paths—and live with the consequences?
This is a thought experiment, drawn from our experience designing learning environments where ambiguity, agency, and tension lead to innovation breakthroughs. What follows is a fictionalised scenario based on real-world principles we’ve tested, and what we’ve seen happen when learners are given autonomy and high stakes.
And yes—it gets uncomfortable. That’s the point.
Setting the Stage: The Learning Lab
Imagine this: a multinational client comes to us with a common L&D brief: “We need our teams to think more creatively, challenge assumptions, and innovate faster.” They’ve tried ideation workshops, hackathons, even external speakers. Results are mixed. Enthusiasm peaks during the session and then disappears like post-conference energy.
We propose something different: a high-stakes, story-driven learning lab. One where the learning is the work—and risk isn’t theoretical.
The Twist? No Safe Option.
Picture three project teams, each facing a gnarly business problem. Then tell them:
“You can choose from two routes. One is heavily structured, linear, backed by research. The other is experimental, messy, and possibly doomed. Both could lead to breakthrough thinking—but only if you fully commit.”
They get 60 minutes to decide. And once a route is chosen, no swaps. No help. No take-backs.
It’s learning meets Russian Roulette.
The Approaches
Route A: The Blueprint
A structured, step-by-step design thinking process. Templates. Timelines. Guardrails. We’ve trained facilitators and tested this route with other clients. It works—but often leads to predictable outcomes.
Route B: The Chaos Lab
Minimal guidance. Just a provocation: “Break the usual rules. Try something that feels wrong.” Teams have to create their own process—while solving a real challenge. Offer disruptive stimuli (weird case studies, random constraints, left-field mentors), but no obvious roadmap.
What Might Happen?
Two teams might choose Route B.
The third—perhaps more risk-averse, or strategic—might choose Route A.
Team A: The Structured Innovators
They move quickly, hit milestones, and produce a clean, polished prototype for a new customer service model. Feedback from stakeholders is positive—but cautious. It looks good, but it feels familiar. They stay inside the box, even as they design outside it.
Team B1: The Unruly Creators
This team flounders for the first few hours. Then one wildcard member suggests they interview the angriest customersthey can find and build a solution purely around complaints. They uncover patterns in frustration the company has missed for years—and design a new service process that eliminates the top three causes of churn. Leadership is stunned.
Team B2: The Emotional Disruptors
This group ignores the problem statement entirely at first and focuses on creating an experience around it. They bring in actors, create a “frustration theatre,” and map how customer emotions change during service touchpoints. Their eventual solution? A training toolkit for frontline staff to decode emotional cues in customer language—something that HR might adopt company-wide.
Why It Works: The Psychology of Risk-Based Learning
When learners have to choose their path—and live with the consequences—it activates:
- Ownership: Teams become invested in their route. There’s no passivity.
- Resourcefulness: Especially on Route B, learners think for themselves, collaborate under pressure, and solve without clear guardrails.
- Reflection: Teams narrate their journey and choices. They don’t just do—they make meaning.
In the debrief, focus less on outcomes and more on how they got there. The discussion isn’t about right or wrong—it’s about what they learned about learning.
The Takeaways for L&D
- Discomfort breeds depth. Real learning often starts where comfort ends. Create experiences where failure is real—but safe.
- Design for autonomy. Choice creates buy-in. Give learners agency.
- Story trumps slides. Every team leaves with a powerful story—and the lessons stick.
- Not all structure helps. Overdesign kills creativity. Sometimes, ambiguity is the curriculum.
The Potential Impact
If applied, risk-forward learning strategies could lead to increases in psychological safety, innovation outcomes, and employee engagement. When teams are trusted to navigate ambiguity, they often rise to the occasion—and surprise themselves.
DCo’s Challenge to You
What if your next learning experience wasn’t about delivering knowledge—but about designing risk?
Would your people step up, or step back?
At DCo, we help build learning cultures that embrace uncertainty, harness creativity, and turn chaos into capability. If you’re ready to push boundaries and unleash real innovation—let’s talk.
