Setting Ourselves Up for Failure

A lot of what we do in the work world (and at home for that matter) is attempt to get people to say "yes" to us. We need agreement or approval from other people before we can do what we want or need to do. That is simply a fact of life in any system, and it applies at all levels–CEOs, Boards, Managers, line staff, as well as external stakeholders like consultants, vendors, etc.

There is a problem, however. In order to get other parties to say yes to us, we tend to inflate, sightly, their expectations. It's not intentional deception. We just over-accentuate the positive of what we want to do or the project we want to happen. This is particularly true when there are money or resources involved (like a consultant trying to get a gig), but it's true across the board. It's easier to get agreement from the other party if we are optimistic and positive about the results. This typically means we only share half of the story or half of the information, because we simply wouldn't mention the parts we are unsure about or any possible negatives. That decreases their chances of saying yes.

When we do this, we are setting ourselves up for failure. Expectations, it turns out, are important things, particularly in terms of brain chemistry. Joe Gerstandt referred me to a Psychology Today blog post about expectations and brain chemistry. The article points out that when we have expectations and they are not met, it has a big impact on our brain, even if they are very small things, or things we weren't particularly aware of. One example was going to the bank to handle something quickly and discovering a long line. You had the expectation (realistic or not) that there would be no line and you could move through quickly, so when that expectation isn't met, you get put into a bad mood. Specifically, it causes a decrease in dopamine in the brain, and that causes the bad mood. Of course the opposite (having your expectations met) will increase dopamine levels. Dopamine is central to the "toward state, to being open, curious, and interested." 

So on a regular basis at work, we raise expectations going into a project in order to get agreement or approval, which may get us the approval but sets us all up for a group dopamine deficiency when those expectations aren't met, even slightly. Consciously or not, the people who said yes are later frustrated by not having their expectations met, and we rarely have people in the work place who are in a "toward state" or open, curious, or interested.

What do we need to change this?

One, we need more truth. We need that other half of the picture that we don't get when people are trying to get us to say yes. But that feels risky, doesn't it? So before that, we probably need more trust. If there were more trust in the system–if you felt that the other people and groups you were working with would regularly safeguard your interests, you'd tell more truth and be clearer about expectations, and the perception of failure would decrease.

3 Comments

  1. 01.12.2009 at 11:52 am

    The trust factor is simultaneously foundation and fragile. One hopes and hopefully operates with trust as a solid foundation. That same foundation becomes fragile when chips in trust which can cause cracks lead to trust erosion or worse.
    The missing piece is setting the stage for trust and thereby greater likelihood for success. Some questions: What are the ground rules? Do all players play by the same rules? Is the team mentality alive and well? Is one encouraged to speak truth to power? I don’t have all the answers but I do know that trust is built one conversation, one water-cooler chat, one Tweet, one meeting at a time.
    To set up for success, trust is an imperative whether in our professional or personal lives.

  2. Kristi Donovan
    01.12.2009 at 1:08 pm

    OK, Jamie, either this post was intentional, or completely serendipitous… but I’m curious to know how your thoughts here might interesect with this Acronym post: http://bit.ly/5nP099
    I think my question is where these two posts intersect, how do you tell the complete truth when you don’t know most of the audience, therefore have no trust established?

  3. 02.12.2009 at 6:33 am

    @Amanda You’ve touched on one of the hard parts about trust, which is it takes time to develop. If you take the time to get the clarity through the questions you are posing, you will have more trust, but too many people feel too busy to do that (but in the long run trust saves tons of time).
    @Kristi, Nope, it was serendipity! I still think the problem with session descriptions is the limit of words rather than the trust. Whether or not I feel that unknown audience can “handle the truth,” when working with 100 words I end up being unclear or misunderstood.
    Your question shines light on an important point. Without a relationship, the truth is not as effective. Without shared language and shared meaning, the truth can be not as…true, in a sense.