Real possibility

14/7/2025

‘Success depends on the real possibility of failure.’ (Clara Nobre)

I heard someone complain recently that achieving their goal would take too much hard work. I replied that, if the goal were more easily achievable, it could risk decreasing any corresponding sense of success. I heard someone else say that the bar for achieving qualifications should be lowered so that more people are able to pass and less people will fail. Their argument was based on compassionate desire for inclusion. I do think it’s legitimate to ask if the bar is at the right level. However, to lower it for this reason alone would risk devaluing the qualification.

A different approach might be to consider whether everyone has equitable access to, say, the life circumstances, resources and support that would enable them to succeed. If someone is disadvantaged by having no access to such things and no realistic prospect of accessing them, should we lower the bar for those people? Or should we, perhaps, do whatever is needed to ensure they are able to gain access and, thereby, to achieve the same standard as others? It’s something about where we locate responsibility for success; the individual or the system.

So, it’s a complex issue. Success depends on the real possibility of failure. If I were to succeed in something without ever having had any real prospect of not-succeeding, where would the sense of merit or achievement be? Take, for instance, a scenario in which I pass a car driving test, irrespective of how well I am able to perform behind the wheel. What would any cause for celebration (say, for successfully overcoming the challenge) be based on afterwards? What would the consequences be for the quality of my driving and the safety of other road users?

9 Comments

Dr. Miriam Keane

14/7/2025 11:52:31 am

Clara Nobre’s assertion invites a nuanced exploration within educational philosophy. Her view intersects with Vygotskian and constructivist theories of learning that emphasize challenge and the ‘zone of proximal development’. The blog raises a critical epistemological and ethical question: Should success be universally accessible, or must it be earned through struggle?

Lowering standards to mitigate failure risks undermining the validity and value of the qualification itself, a concern echoed in academic integrity debates.

However, this logic can become exclusionary if it fails to account for structural inequities that create uneven starting points. Your mention of “where we locate responsibility” is significant. It aligns with broader sociological discourse on systemic barriers and social reproduction (e.g. Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital).

The blog would benefit from distinguishing between equality (treating everyone the same) and equity (ensuring fair outcomes). Rather than diluting challenge, institutions should scaffold access through mentoring, adaptive pedagogy and contextualized support. A qualification should remain robust but not inaccessible due to non-merit-based obstacles.

In conclusion, failure must remain possible or success loses meaning. But so too must opportunity be genuine. Otherwise, the system is set up to merely reproduce privilege.

Alex Renner

14/7/2025 11:54:34 am

Nice one, Nick. In business risk is fundamental. Success without the possibility of failure is artificial. It stifles innovation and growth. This blog reminds me of our start-up days. We didn’t lower the bar; we raised our game. But Nobre is right about system access. Talent is everywhere but opportunity isn't. We fix that by investing in pipelines, mentorship, and accessible recruitment, not by making roles easier. Success should be earned but the means to strive for it must be fairly distributed. Let’s keep the bar high but widen the path toward it.

Haruki Watanabe

14/7/2025 11:56:48 am

Hi Nick. In Japan, we value discipline, perseverance (gaman) and collective achievement. Clara Nobre’s reflection on failure feels familiar; here, students face intense pressure not to fail, not only for personal pride but to honor family and school. However, the suggestion that success requires the possibility of failure is also true. True honor comes not from ease but effort. Yet we also acknowledge that excessive failure can harm community morale and personal wellbeing.

Rather than lowering the bar, we often provide uniform support, even if it means students study late into the night or attend supplementary school. The bar remains but the path is communal. Perhaps the UK can learn from our balance: do not remove difficulty but ensure no one walks the path alone.

Oluchi Nkem

14/7/2025 11:59:12 am

If I may comment, Nick, in my community success is often viewed not only through effort but divine favour. When someone succeeds, we thank God. When someone fails, we say it was not yet their time or that we must try again with grace. Clara Nobre’s argument is thoughtful. Yes, success means more when it is earned and when failure was possible. But we also believe that not all failure is personal. It may be due to hardship, lack of opportunity or unseen spiritual battles.

Lowering standards isn’t always the answer but neither is ignoring that some people are carrying much heavier burdens. Here in Lagos, many students succeed against impossible odds: e.g. poor infrastructure, power cuts or financial constraints. Their success is monumental but not because the bar was lower. It’s because they endured. I believe in high standards. But I also believe in compassionate systems. If someone fails, we don’t shame them. We lift them, pray for them and support them to try again. That is also success.

Jamie Lin

14/7/2025 12:00:21 pm

Hi Nick. Learning isn’t meaningful without friction. That’s the L&D principle at play in this blog. But friction must be productive, not punitive. If learners are failing because the system lacks the resources, tools or psychological safety needed for growth, we haven’t designed learning well. We can maintain high standards and high support. Adaptive content, coaching and feedback loops allow all learners to meet the bar without moving it. Nobre’s blog reminds us: challenge fuels development but equity fuels possibility.

Soraya Adu

14/7/2025 12:02:48 pm

Hello Nick. Your blog poses an important challenge to EDI professionals: how do we balance inclusion with rigor? Clara Nobre’s concern about lowering standards purely for inclusion’s sake is valid but so is the imperative to interrogate what those standards are, who created them and who they serve. Historically, many benchmarks for success have been based on dominant-culture norms often privileging certain groups while obscuring systemic barriers for others. Lowering the bar isn’t the goal; redefining how success is measured is. Are we testing merit, or conformity?

Equity is about more than fair access. It’s about restructuring systems so they produce fair outcomes. When someone is excluded due to lack of resources, the problem isn’t their potential. It’s the gatekeeping. Inclusion means designing systems where people can thrive without diluting challenge.

I agree we must question where responsibility lies. EDI argues that systems (education, hiring, leadership) must shift from passive gatekeepers to active enablers. Not everyone should pass by default. But everyone should be set up to try, grow and succeed without institutional bias predicting their failure. Thanks for sharing this, Nick. It's an important topic.

Naomi Pillai

14/7/2025 12:05:01 pm

Hi Nick. In the HR landscape, we face this tension frequently between maintaining standards and fostering inclusivity. For instance, in recruitment and promotion, we want to ensure rigor without unintentionally embedding bias.

You wisely point to system-level responsibility. It’s not about lowering expectations but addressing structural barriers: unequal access to education, career development or psychological safety at work. In performance management, success should stretch people but not break them.

We must ask: Is this failure due to poor performance or poor support? HR’s role is to set clear expectations and create environments that nurture growth. Equitable access to mentoring, training and flexible working is essential.

Failure must be possible but it shouldn’t be preordained.

Kendall Rivera

14/7/2025 12:06:31 pm

In the US we romanticize failure. It’s practically a badge of honor in startup culture. So I’m with Clara: no failure, no growth.

But we also love a level playing field. You can’t call it “merit” if some people start 5 laps behind. That’s not challenge, it’s injustice. Keep the bar high. Just build more runways to get there.

Janet Dilly

14/7/2025 12:07:48 pm

I love your driving test metaphor Nick. So true!

Real possibility

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Real possibility

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives