Expectation Calibration
I’ve had my share of collisions between expectations and reality. It occurs, most often, when my past experience is the sole foundation on which my expectations are built. I can’t really be faulted for this because studies[1] show that this is the tendency of all humans however, that doesn’t diminish the mental and emotional toll that collision can take. On more than one occasion it has left me feeling befuddled and frustrated and sometimes bruised. Depending on the situation, my reaction can fall anywhere between stagnation and tenacity. And, finding a way to land between these two extremes has been challenging.
I believe that our experiences and relationships, if we are paying attention, draw us to the life lessons we are intended to learn. In my case, my engagement work has offered fertile ground to learn about navigating expectation and reality collisions. After numerous fender benders and some complete crashes, I adopted what I affectionately call expectation calibration. It helps me to unveil expectations and, when necessary, adjust my approach because, in my experience, the quote below rings true.
“The quality of our expectations determines the quality of our action.” - Andre Godin
I also think this quote points to the importance of exploring expectations as part of an engagement readiness practice. When we have a better idea of what people are expecting we can make better plans.
Harvard Business School Professor Rosabeth Kanter, wrote an article for the Alabama Law Review in 2011[2] that talked about how expectations are formed. Her work along with that of Dr. Ken Hultman on values as motives[3], informed my thinking about expectation calibration for engagement. It helped me formulate a matrix to support the exploration of expectations by considering the three ways Kanter suggests they are formed – history, context and values through different viewpoints.
History is about where we and/or others have been. It involves thinking about what has happened in the past that will influence what people think about this engagement work. It is intended to reveal what was learned and what is believed about these previous experiences to help understand what might be carried over into this work.
Context is about the present. It involves thinking about the influencing factors and desired outcomes that are informing the need for engagement. It is intended to reveal what is believed to be the purpose of the engagement.
Values is about motivation. It involves thinking about the values believed to be prompting the engagement and how these might impact the effectiveness of the effort.
Based on my work with municipal governments, I usually focus on three viewpoints: decision-makers, administration and the public. That is what you will see in the version below. Looking through these lenses helps reveal where some of the synergies might be and where there may be tensions in the viewpoints. Both are important inputs to help understand what needs clarification and attention now to foster success later.
Also included are a few suggested questions to help fill in the matrix. These aren’t exhaustive and it’s worth collaborating with colleagues to incorporate others. The exercise helps make expectations more explicit and this knowledge can be used to inform engagement planning and communication.
I’ve applied this matrix both personally and professionally. I adjust the top row to reflect the different viewpoints that might be involved and will sometimes include myself in there. I find that personal reflection can be helpful to check how my expectations could have an impact on the work I’m doing.
Using this matrix has helped alleviate some of the mystery, exasperation and abrasions that used to be more common in my work and life than I care to admit. I encourage you to play with this idea and in doing so, I hope you find something of value to help soften any expectation and reality collisions you might encounter.
[1] Tafton, A. (2019) How expectation influences perception. MIT News Office; Kahneman, D. (2013) Thinking Fast and Slow. Anchor Canada.
[2] Kanter, R. Values, Purpose, Meaning and Expectations: Why Culture and Context Matter. Alabama Law Review, Vol. 62, Issue 5 (2011), pp. 1033-1046
[3] Hultman, K. (1976). Values as Defenses. Personnel & Guidance Journal. Vol. 54 Issue 5, p268.