Deal or No Deal?

Social norms, the customary rules that govern behavior in groups and societies, have been extensively studied in the social sciences. Anthropologists have described how social norms function in different cultures (Geertz 1973), sociologists have focused on their social functions and how they motivate people to act (Durkheim 1950; Parsons 1937, Parsons and Shils 1951; Coleman 1990; Hechter and Opp 2001), and economists have explored how adherence to norms influences market behavior (Akerlof 1976; Young 1998). 

However, somewhere between social norms and taboos is a gray line called expectations.  These are scenarios based solely on individual “preferences.”  There are the “picky, hard to please” types which aim for perfection.  The types that always can and do add to the status quo because that’s what they expect of themselves.  However, to those around them, they come across as too critical and demanding.  Then there are the “get it done” types.  The group that believes, if you want to do more, you have to expect to not do it perfectly.  Of course to the perfectionist, this group comes across as performing substandard and yet it seems they are liked by a large majority.  The last type of course is the “Keep them on their toes, “curb your enthusiasm” types.  This group is very capable and resourceful, but they waiver between one of the two types throughout days. They don’t like to be known as the perfectionist, but they are also go getters.  As you see, we are not even going to discuss the non-performers.  This group has a complete different frame of mind, and is frankly not our reader. 

So now that we have covered these three performance types, we will proceed to discuss why it matters.  In leadership, exchanges within the professional realm, between employees and employers fall within one of the above matches of categories.  The question is which types and what difference does the interaction between the various styles make on performance outcomes?  In other words how do employee/employer expectations of behavior, shape performance outcomes?

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of studies already published which demonstrate how a person's expectations can shape another person's behavior. One of the early studies of expectancy effects was conducted by Robert Rosenthal. He told elementary school teachers that some of the students had been identified as intellectual bloomers by a test they took. The teachers were told the names of those students and led to expect that those students would do particularly well over the course of the coming academic year.  In truth, the information given to the teachers was bogus. The students identified as bloomers were no different academically from the other students. Their names were selected at random. Only their teachers' expectations for them differed. Yet, sure enough, the students who were expected to bloom really did do better than the others by the end of the school year.

By now, the power of expectations has been demonstrated not just in classrooms, but also in workplaces, courtrooms, doctor-patient interactions, parent-child interactions, psychotherapy, consumer transactions, and more.  So you may ask, why is what we already know worth discussing now? The reason is that as a result of previous studies, the discussions involving expectations were mainly used in developing reward systems in organizations.  Well, these are tough times in the economy.  Wealthy and well-established organizations such as Darden and Chesapeake Energy have had to layoff 500 to 800 employees at one time (Business Week).  Organizations globally, need to conjure other ways of motivating their workforce beyond the dollar amount increase on their paychecks.  So what gives? The answer I believe lies in the interaction we spoke of previously. 

The last quarter of the year, usually marks the time where many organizations have their yearly retreats and holiday gathering.  However, in truth, the majority do these as a tradition, rather than a ritual; the latter pointing to a set of objectives to be met, in addition to socializing and having fun.  So what are the objectives referred to here?  They can be summed up in one sentence: getting to know your employees.  Of course, I am not suggesting by any means that a once a year event can do miracles.  However, it is a great opportunity.   What performance standards do they adhere to?  What motivates them?  What is their view of themselves?  So one may ask: aren’t there a million things people are motivated by? A new car, a new house, days off, vacations, etc.? The answer is, no.  According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs after our most primary need, which is basically surviving from hunger, we are pursuing one of three needs: 1.  Safety, 2.  Belonging, and 3.  Mattering. In every communication, in every conflict, we are subconsciously either reinforcing or yearning for safety, belonging, mattering or a combination.  So what this means is that the key to making your employees feel like they want to be there and be engaged at doing the things you want them to do, is not being the same to all of them.  I could just see some Equal Employment Opportunity proponents thinking “not a good idea.”  Well, we are not talking unfair treatment here.  We are talking “individualized” and “customized” treatment.  It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “you can’t be everything to everyone” doesn’t it? Yes, you have your own unique individual style, whether it be the perfectionist, the get it done or the curb your enthusiasm type.  But so is your employee.  If your expectations are flawed and you view them and expect the same from them as you would from yourself, you might as well save yourself that retreat money and give them a nice severance package today.  The emotionally intelligent employer, gets the inside scoop on their workforce and provides the right remedy for the right ill.   Does that take time? You bet it does.  But so does hiring, training, and planning.  Want a Top Performer that will win the crowd like Cher did on Dancing with the Stars this week? Deal.