A framework to articulate expectations: Level of expectations ≈ Amount of new
/By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.
Reading time: 9 mins
Summary: How much progress someone should be able to make on a project is often related to how much ‘new’ there is in the project. If you have lots of experience you should be able to crush it on your first attempt, but if you have minimal experience it might take multiple attempts until you get to a good place (i.e. above sufficiency). We should therefore always seek to understand how much ‘new’ there is before we begin a project so expectations can be set in an energising manner.
Energising expectations = 1. The amount of ‘new’ is understood at the outset of a project + 2. The expectations hurdle is proportional to the amount of new
How the amount of new can affect expectation hurdles
Problem size = Amount of new
No new = You should be able to reach 100%+ of sufficiency on V1 (your first attempt). Another articulation: if you’ve done this activity multiple times successfully before you shouldn’t have any trouble crushing it the first time!
Small new = You should reach 50%+ of sufficiency on V1 and 100%+ of sufficiency on V2.
Medium new = You should reach 33%+ of sufficiency on V1, 66%+ of sufficiency on V2, and 100%+ of sufficiency on V3.
Large new = You should reach 25%+ of sufficiency on V1, 50%+ of sufficiency on V2, 75%+ of sufficiency on V3, and 100%+ of sufficiency on V4.
Extra large = You should reach 0%+ of sufficiency on V1, and 100%+ of sufficiency on V5+. Mega projects might take 50 versions until you reach sufficiency.
In these cases, hitting sufficiency often also means setting a new high water mark.
For more about sufficiency please read this blog.
Going deeper for a ‘large amount of new’
How does this relate to expectations in this example?
Expectations that are too low = expecting someone would need10 versions to get to sufficiency when only ~4 may be required. This is not energising as there is no challenge and could be construed to indicate a lack of faith in someone’s ability.
Expectations that are too high = expecting someone to be able to get to sufficiency on the first attempt. This is not energising as it is setting someone up for failure.
Expectations that are energising (just right) = might be ~4 versions to get to sufficiency.
Happiness = Reality - Expectations
Jingle: if you can’t set expectations for yourself and others well you can expect to be unhappy!
++++++++++++
Details
When doing a project you need to figure out what the goal is (sufficiency)
Please read Sufficiency vs Perfectionism
Ceilingless vs Having a ceiling: Most things don’t have a ceiling, this means one can improve indefinitely.
For things without a ceiling you can’t ever reach ‘perfection’. So you need to set a point where you stop trying to improve, otherwise you will only ever work on that one thing! EG the goal for Edrolo products = to be the new high water mark for all core areas.
Normally I have the goal of reaching sufficiency.
How long should it take someone to reach sufficiency? This depends how much experience they have with the problem they are working on. Another way to articulate this: how much ‘new’ there is.
Problem size affects how much progress someone should make
Problem size = Amount of new
No new = You should be able to reach 100%+ of sufficiency on V1 (your first attempt). Another articulation: if you’ve done this activity multiple times successfully before you shouldn’t have any trouble crushing it the first time!
Small new = You should reach 50%+ of sufficiency on V1 and 100%+ of sufficiency on V2.
Medium new = You should reach 33%+ of sufficiency on V1, 66%+ of sufficiency on V2, and 100%+ of sufficiency on V3.
Large new = You should reach 25%+ of sufficiency on V1, 50%+ of sufficiency on V2, 75%+ of sufficiency on V3, and 100%+ of sufficiency on V4.
Extra large = You should reach 0%+ of sufficiency on V1 and 100%+ of should reach sufficiency on V5+. Mega projects might take 50 versions until you reach sufficiency.
In these cases, hitting sufficiency often also means setting a new high water mark.
It may feel unintuitive that making 0% progress on your first attempt might be the appropriate ‘hurdle for expectations’. But sometimes 0% progress is exactly the right expectation to set?
If you’ve never done something before I don’t think you should expect someone to know what they are doing. To me, what matters is not the absolute amount of progress someone makes but the trajectory of their improvement in progress.
So I normally say I don’t mind if you make zero progress on this project on V1, but I do mind if you either 1. Don’t try or 2. Don’t believe you can make progress.
“Whether you think you can or you can’t, you are right.” Henry Ford.
I know I said that for a small amount of new one should get to 50% on V1, but I’ll often say that 0%+ progress is fine as long as you 1. Tried to make progress and 2. Didn’t give up on yourself!
If someone makes zero progress I’ll normally try and help. I find it very rare that someone makes zero progress
I find that if you don’t set expectations people often think that for V1 they need to get to 100%+ of sufficiency. IMO for any problem with a small+ amount of new, 100%+ of sufficiency on V1 is an unrealistic expectation.
Net amount of new = 1. How much experience someone has with the problem - 2. How much support they are provided
I think one goal of a manager should be to grow their direct reports.
One measure of growth is ‘how much progress can someone make on things that are ‘new’’.
One core strategy to get better is through experience. So if you have never had any ‘new’ to deal with then you probably aren’t going to be good at making progress with ‘new’.
I’ve found that many first time managers think that ‘good managers are good helpers’. This can often actualise as:
A. Here is a problem with a medium amount of new
B. As the manager I’m going to give you a medium amount of support.
C. So the actual net experience is nothing new for the person tackling the task:
Amount of new = 1. New amount Medium - 2. Support size Medium provided by well-intentioned manager = 3. Direct report experiences net zero of ‘new’.
A core strategy I use to develop people’s ability to get better at ‘medium amounts of new’ is to
‘1. give them a problem with a medium amount of new - 2. Give them no support + 3. Set expectations properly (ie help them understand now much progress to make on V1)’
This means exposing a direct report to ‘new’ and not robbing them of a growth opportunity by providing support
If this was done without setting appropriate expectations this would be setting them up to fail
You shouldn’t expect someone to get something right the first time if they haven’t tackled it before and don’t get any support!
But if you set the expectations that you don’t expect them to get to sufficiency on their V1 then this can be energising: you’re giving room to grow with permission to fail.
One approach to growing people’s problem solving ability:
Start off giving them problems with small amounts of new with no support and appropriate expectations. Once someone is good at small amounts of new then move onto giving them medium amounts of new.
Now give someone medium amounts of new with no support and appropriate expectations. Once someone is good at medium amounts of new then move onto giving them large amounts of new.
Now give someone large amounts of new with no support and appropriate expectations. Once someone is good at large amounts of new then move onto extra large amounts of new.
Etc etc.
Comment
One goal I have is to get people to be good at all sizes (i.e. amounts of new) of problem solving. This happens by giving them the opportunity to have experience with all sizes of problem solving.
Once someone is good at extra large problem solving they are ‘free’. They can do anything :)
Flailing is not failing
You get good at medium amounts of new by doing medium amounts of new.
Energising expectations are setting expectations that are appropriate for the amount of new.
Eg if you are given a medium amount of new, then the expectation might be that it will take you 3 versions to get to sufficiency.
This likely means lots of ‘flailing on the way to sufficiency’.
Managers may try to help someone too much with the well-intentioned view to removing the ‘flailing’. In doing so they rob the opportunity to get good at dealing with ‘new’.
Why do they do this?
Because flailing is often thought of as ‘on the road to failing’
Why do people think that flailing = ‘on the road to failing’?
Because the wrong expectations have been set (or expectations have simply not been set at all)
If you reset the expectation that ‘flailing’ = great growth opportunity and instead set the expectation that ‘you won’t get to 100%+ sufficiency and this is okay you’re creating a safe environment for someone to experience maximum growth
So not only is flailing not failing, IMO flailing is a core component of levelling up your ability to deal with ‘new’.
Flailing * Energising Expectations = Growth
Expectations should be energising
Expectations too low = bad. You’re selling someone short!
Expectations too high = bad. You’re setting someone up to fail!
Energising expectations = reasonable level of progress expected. You’re setting someone up to grow!
Energising expectations set a reasonable hurdle that both parties understand.
Energising expectations maximise growth in one's ability to deal with ‘new’.
But when should you help vs maximise the someone's ability to ‘flail’ AKA experiment with making progress with new?
If you have time pressure on a deliverable then provide help.
If you don’t have time pressure then don’t rob someone of the opportunity to grow, ie don’t fail to give them the gift of flailing!
If you only take away one thing
IMO what matters is not how good you are at something, but how fast you can get better at something.
I don’t want to get good at being taught how to do things. I want to get good at teaching myself how to do things.
I don’t want to be good at training others how to do things. I want to get good at growing others’ ability to teach themselves new things.
Jingle: you can get good at not being good at things.