Self Esteem = Percentage Win Rate
/By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.
Reading time: 16 mins
You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.
Will try (aka take the shot) = have sufficient+ self esteem
Outcome = 1. Will try * 2. How well you try
If you don’t try then the outcome can never be good.
As such it’s conceivable the most important thing you can do for yourself is to build your self esteem.
As such it’s conceivable the most important thing you can do for others is to build their self esteem.
IMO for positive sum games it’s possible for almost everyone to win ‘every game’ (details below).
One part of self esteem = getting a win / recent win rate
IMO you can give yourself and others authentic wins.
If someone did a good job say so = win
If someone didn’t do a good job try help them see a way to do a good job next time = win (they don’t feel a loss and feel positive about the future, aka have self belief (esteem))
Jingle: Team work makes the dream work. To be the dream team, build an esteem team!
Overview
Zero sum vs Positive sum games
Zero sum game = winner and loser = most sport, board games… and unfortunately often how secondary education is viewed.
Positive sum game = everyone can be a winner = most developed world workplaces
For example:
In a meeting at work we want everyone to add value.
IMO what matters is the quantum of value added, not ranking who added the most value to least value.
IMO what matters is that someone added value at all and that hopefully the amount of value they add on average over time increases.
What I think this means is that in positive sum games it’s possible for everyone walk out with a unit of ‘esteem’ / ‘win’.
What esteem looks like in Zero vs Positive sum games:
Zero sum game
Win = esteem built
Loss = esteem burnt
Positive sum game
Did you add value in meeting = esteem built (not did you add the most esteem in the meeting)
Is your proposal better than the existing outcome = esteem built (not that someone else could have made a proposal even better than what you did)
Comment: IMO Edrolo is a positive sum game, the goal is to get as much value being added by Edrolo as a whole, not rank the order of who adds the most to least value.
Will ‘give up’ levels:
Zero sum games: it varies but typically at 25% or less win rate (aka negative sentiment override)
75%+ win rate = bullet proof esteem
50% win rate = will engage in game = have self esteem (believe)
25% win rate = will quit playing the game unless = no self esteem
Positive sum games:
If value added = esteem built
If growing vs themselves yesterday = esteem built
If someone doesn’t believe they are improving or have the ability to improve in the future = esteem burnt
Building vs burning units of self esteem = 1. How the game is set up + 2. Internal mindset + 3. External feedback
1. How the game is set up = game is setup with attainable units of progress AKA wins AKA unit of self esteem being built
2. Internal mindset = growth mindset (vs fixed mindset) OR know can you can improve through adding strategies to yourself
3. External feedback =
If someone eg added value or had a proposal that that is better than the existing outcome say so
If someone tried but didn’t add value then say good job on trying, here is how I might think about adding value (ie input * metacognition = output ie some metacognition feedback to help add value AKA a strategy to use)
Growth mindset ≠ High self esteem
Growth mindset = that you abilities are not set, that with effort you can improve
Fixed mindset = your abilities are set
IMO just because someone knows about ‘growth mindsets’ and tries to have a growth mindset does not mean they have good self esteem. If you don’t succeed (ie improve at / level up) what you are trying then you eventually give up and have a ‘fixed mindset’ of sorts.
Improvement = Growth mindset * Ways to improve = High self esteem
++++++++++++++
Details
Positive Sentiment Override Vs Negative Sentiment Override
Nobel prize winning economist Danny Kahneman came up with the concept of ‘positive sentiment override’.
This is where 3:1 positive:negative outcomes mean that if a negative occurs you have positive sentiment override for it.
Eg 1: if you work 8 hours a day and 6 hours are enjoyable but 2 hours are not enjoyable you don’t care about the 2 not enjoyable hours because of the enjoyable 6 hours. AKA you have positive sentiment override for the 2 not enjoyable hours.
Eg 2: let’s say you have a regular meeting with people, if someone adds value 75% of the time but no value 25% of the time you still think they are a value additive person overall because 75% of the time they add value. AKA you have positive sentiment override for the times no value is added.
*aside: I did an exploration of positive vs negative sentiment override for ‘reputation’ AKA the external view people have you in this blog.
Self esteem and positive sentiment override
One articulation for self esteem = the amount of times you have a positive effect on the world vs times you aren’t able to have a positive effect
We can also look at this as: Percentage win rate = Positive effect made on the world / Instances you have been able to try make a positive effect on the world
The more value you are able to add, the more self esteem you will build
Your percentage win rate is very similar to how positive/negative sentiment override ratios work
Negative sentiment override: 3:1 negative:positive track record OR 25% win rate means you don’t believe in yourself. You are ‘bad’ at this. Normally people give up in areas with 25% or less win rate. No self esteem and will stop trying.
Neutral sentiment override: 1:1 negative:positive track record OR 50% win rate means you think you are ‘ok’, and will continue to try. Neutral self esteem.
Positive sentiment override: 1:3 negative:positive track record OR 75% win rate means you believe in yourself. You expect to ‘win’ / add value. Strong self esteem.
Game changer sentiment override: 1:5+ negative:positive track record means or ~83%+ win rate. You assume you’ll add value. Bullet proof self esteem / confidence.
Growth mindset vs Win Rate
Mindset recap
Growth mindset = think you can improve your ability by effort (eg levelling up through strategy acquisition)
Fixed mindset = think one’s abilities are fixed (eg you are innately good / bad at something)
Having a growth mindset does not mean you have a high win rate
I.e rote learning the test vs having flexible knowledge about the test material
But even if you get the concept of ‘growth vs fixed mindset’ and you have a 0% win rate it’s very hard not to ‘give up’.
To help explain, here is a simplified model looking at self esteem and mindset as binary variables
So you need to be able to help people get ‘wins’ and / or give yourself a plan to get some wins. Therefore: Optimal growth = 1. Strong self esteem * 2. Growth mindset
It isn’t good enough to just have a growth mindset or strong self esteem
To recap: IMO in positive sum games everyone can ‘win’. IMO most games today are ‘positive sum’.
“Whether you think you can or you can’t, you are right.” Henry Ford
There is a wonderful book called ‘The Inner Game Of Tennis’. One articulation of this book is that ‘doing well at tennis is all about managing your internal self confidence / esteem’.
*aside: one of the parts I love of watching tennis is that IMO you can see the ‘self esteem’ of players fluctuate. From backing themselves to overthinking it and messing stuff up (eg hooking the shot).
The concept of ‘flow’: flow state (also known colloquially as being in the zone) = the mental state in which a person performing some activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity.
One articulation of flow at work = high quality thinking / creativity
IMO one core component to be in ‘flow’ is quality ‘self esteem’, AKA ideally ‘positive sentiment override+’.
IMO just like in tennis, if you are doubting yourself you are likely self sabotaging your thoughts AKA “hooking the shot” with your thoughts.
“You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” Michael Scott.
I often put it more bluntly at Edrolo: ‘believing in yourself is not optional’. I don’t mind if you add value in a meeting or not, but I do mind if you don’t believe in yourself and as such don’t try to add value.
If you don’t believe in yourself you often don’t take the shot.
Zero sum games ≠ positive sum games. IMO in positive sum games everyone can ‘win’.
I don’t care how many shots people take and miss ‘aka not win’. I don’t care if the win rate is 0%. I care if there are no shots taken.
To me what matters is that someone is trying to ‘add value’ and that on average the amount of value they add is on average improving.
IMO in zero sum games like sport, board games etc win rate = esteem. IMO unfortunately a lot of secondary education is perceived like a ‘zero sum game’.
IMO in positive sum games like hopefully most businesses in developed countries self esteem = value added. That you can add any value, not the percentage of times you say something is value being added.
Building self esteem in yourself and in others
If self esteem = percentage win rate, the way to improve self esteem is to improve your win rate and the win rate of those around you
The vast majority of workplaces are a positive sum game, in the sense that, workplaces are a group of people working together toward a common goal
All the individual input into reaching the common goal is collectively a win for everyone involved
Examples of what a win is in the workplace for individuals
Winning = adding value in the meeting
Losing = trying to be seen as adding the most value in the meeting
Winning = trying to add value
Losing = not saying anything at all AKA not taking any shots
Examples of creating wins for others
Winning = creating an environment where new ideas are encouraged
Losing = creating a single player environment in a multiplayer game
Winning = reflecting on why one idea is adding more value than others
Losing = not reflecting on metacognition collectively
You get exactly the behavior you celebrate / encourage.
Either in the meeting or after 1:1 I’ll try and say to someone if they added value or tried to add value “really found this point valuable” or “thanks for saying X, even though I don’t think we’ll include it in the plan it’s really good to see you thinking this way.”
Improving = building self esteem. Adding strategy = Improving.
One articulation I have for improving = getting strategies from others and / or making them for yourself.
In a field each strategy you add normally improves your abilities. Blog link.
When you realise you can improve in almost all mental fields by adding strategies you will increase your win rate (aka your self esteem level)
What matters is not what your current levels are (eg IMO in almost all new mental pursuits we all start at Level 0) but how good you are at levelling up/improving
Having a plan to level up = getting more strategies = higher win rate = increase in self esteem.
If you find yourself with low self esteem, it won’t feel good
But if you don’t have a plan to improve then they’ll stay not good.
“If you are going through hell, keep going.” - Churchill.
Don’t stop and set up camp in hell.
If things are not good then build a plan to improve, eg find strategies from others and / or build them for yourself.
In a bad place * No plan to get out of bad place = Learned helplessness = No self esteem
Learned help yourself-ness = know building a plan will help = can find strategies from others and / or build them for yourself.
Another lens on how to define self esteem
What DA used to think: Self Esteem Level = How good you are in an area (ie what level you are at)
What DA thinks now: Self Esteem Level = How good you are at levelling up (ie rate of change)
You are always going to take hits on your journey
What matters is if you dust yourself off and try again in a more strategic fashion until you improve at leveling up = high self esteem
If you stop trying and give up, then you can’t level up = low self esteem
In almost all mental pursuits people start at Level 0 but can level up
One strategy I have to help level up people
Give them problems 1-2x levels beyond where they are and then DON’T help them.
Failing is not failing if growth occurs. If you show them the ‘answer’ then you rob them of the opportunity to level themselves up.
IMO the ultimate metaskill is being able to level oneself up (aka add strategies for oneself), by not giving the answer it allows oneself to level themselves up
I used to think that good managers level up their direct reports. Now I think that good managers grow their direct reports ability to level up.
How to give feedback on poor job while improving self esteem
Innovation = esteem (believe you can improve) * growth mindset * metacognition skills (ability to improve)
Innovation = doing something new you have never done before = higher chance of failure = learning opportunities
Downside culture = what you are willing to walk past.
You should not walk past bad behaviour or poor project outcomes, if someone did a poor job with a project you should say so but you need to be super careful not to break their self belief / esteem.
Before giving feedback you should assess, did this person to a poor job due to the level they are at or because of how the environment was set up (E.g Were the boundary conditions defined?, was everyone aligned on the JTBD?, was there space given to respond to all input/questions?, was enough time given for the task? etc)
If can be difficult to set up the environment correctly, especially when in a fast moving environment where there are many moving pieces amongst our own blindspots and ego distortions
If the environment was set up correctly and a poor job was performed, then constructive feedback needs to be given on the performance
An example of how you might consider providing feedback on poor quality work:
1. Thanks for the effort.
2. Thoughts on output and how output can be improve.
3. “Input * Metacognition = Output”. Thoughts on metacognition and how to think about problem solving (metacognition) differently.
4. That what they are doing is called ‘the path of improving’. Everyone starts at Level 0, hopefully you can level up indefinitely. Don’t beat yourself up, figure out how to level up!
5. Then you set them another project where the ideas discussed here can be implemented and the chance of a ‘win’ is very high. AKA give someone an authentic win. Does wonders for their self esteem :).
Peter principle = promoting someone to the point of incompetence
But also sometimes someone is just out of their depth. Their level of ability isn’t at point where as much value can be added as others.
E.g If someone is in a L5 areawhen what they can handle is L3.
Someone consistently doing a poor job even if you’ve tried to help them level up isn’t good for anyone.
Eg the output is low quality, the person doesn’t believe in themselves and you don’t look forward to interacting with the person.
If someone is out of their depth in an area, then what is needed is leveling up to get them to positive sentiment override winrate in the area
If your esteem (eg win rate) is low then build a plan of what to do about it
If you have low esteem (eg poor recent win rate) it is not acceptable to not build a plan to get to high esteem.
Low self esteem = often self fulfilling :(
You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.
Whether you think you can or you can’t, you are right.
Strategies = systematic ways to improve (aka build self esteem)
Build yourself a plan to get more strategies
What a plan may involve
Asking for help.
If you are in over your head, eg needing to do L5 work but currently have ‘only’ levelled up to L3 then get to L3 space and do the upgrades you need to be able to operate at a L5 space.
Looking externally i.e reading widely, completing courses etc
Reading, Writing, Discussing
Thoughts on building esteem in secondary education products - giving people ‘wins’ = try more = improve more
I used to think about trying to maximise the amount of learning over a period of time.
But I now think that if someone's self esteem is broken they’ll give up before the period of time for learning has run to completion.
So one lens I now use to articulate how to maximising the amount of learning, is to maximize the amount of esteem that is built over a lesson
Max esteem built = max time trying eg Maths = max amount learned
What this can mean is that you start question difficulty easier to get students to have a few ‘authentic wins’ for the lesson and then you ramp difficulty faster.
If you win a bunch in the first half of a lesson = you are still trying in the second half of a lesson and will take a few losses but not give up.
If you lose a bunch in the first half of a lesson = often students give up and there is no second half of the lesson
To be clear, the end point of a lesson doesn’t change, eg the ultimate level of difficulty. It’s just I used to think the optimal path was linearly increasing difficulty. I now think it’s more likely a ramp of difficulty.
IMO an easier on ramp to question difficulty is not ‘lower learning outcomes’, ‘it’s building self esteem / belief, increasing the amount of time students try, and as such over a lesson increasing the amount of learning that occurs’.
To finish first first you must finish!
If you only take away one thing
Most of the current world isn’t zero sum, what matters is the amount of value added, not ranking first to last how much value people added.
This means hopefully everyone can ‘win’.
What matters is that the amount of value you add hopefully increases over time.
IMO one can systematically level oneself and others up.
But, one should also be looking to manage one's self esteem and that of others. Give yourself and others authentic wins.