Do unto others 20% better than you would expect them to do unto you, to correct for subjective error.
Well that’s interesting, isn’t it?
An update of the venerable golden rule?
Apparently, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” doesn’t quite cut it anymore …
… because subjective error is involved …
… which is what, exactly?
Subjective error is error caused by biases or prejudices.
You are familiar with at least these likely suspects —
- At the end of each training session, the trainer asks for feedback from participants.
- At each quarterly meeting, the sales directors give a forecast of what’s in the pipeline for next quarter’s sales.
- A manager working with his coach on setting up his 360 degree feedback process cherry-picks the people he will ask to participate.
You think there might be some subjective error here?
There almost undoubtedly is.
Undoubtedly?
Yes, undoubtedly.
A tell tale sign of subjective error is when you run across some dissonance. Some disconfirming evidence. Contrary information.
Let’s revisit those likely suspects …
The trainer feels pretty good about receiving a 4.6 average on the standard 5-point Likert scale, interpreting that result to mean the training was highly effective. But informal comments participants make outside the classroom to peers and others indicate that feedback rating did not reflect their true perception of the training session …
As for those sales directors, quarter after quarter the actual sales never quite line up with the projections, and there are always explanations for the pipeline leakage …
And that manager’s 360? It comes back pretty positive, with even the lowest ranked items comparing favoritively to the norms … But how do we square that result with the poor morale of that manager’s workgroup?
What’s to be done about this?
We need to be aware of the subjective error. And we need to account for it, and factor it in to our decision making. Awareness can come by simply recognizing that when there’s self-interest to protect, or social influence at work, there is likely to be subjective error.
The trainees in the session might not be real comfortable in telling the trainer that the training — or her delivery of it — wasn’t quite stellar. And the sales directors certainly need to project strong sales, or they face a challenging set of questions that can be threatening or embarrassing. And that manager with the 360? Critical feedback is threatening in even the most benign situations …
So, when we see situations where conditions are ripe for producing subjective error, we need to consider not taking the data at face value. We need to consider an adjustment factor.
We need to think about that 20%.
Now, if this doesn’t sit well with you … if you’re not happy with the 20% markup on the golden rule these days … there is something else you can do.
You can try and design out the subjective error. You can try and remove the bias and the predudice.
Any thoughts on how to do that?
Begin your pondering …
johnponders 
It sounds like you’re saying the 20% is what we observe all the time–resulting in the dissonance between the projections, feedback and evaluations and the reality that is revealed by other data points–and that this extra 20% needs to be removed.
However, I interpret LInus Pauling’s quote as an encouragement to put in the 20% when “doing unto others.”
So, is the extra 20% a positive or a negative? Or does it depend on the situation?
But to respond to your request for thoughts on how to combat the undesirable extra 20%, here are mine for your three suspects (in reverse order):
There is a quid pro quo that happens in business as everyone is looking for supporters. Thus, if I’m overly favorable in my evaluation of you, you’re more likely to be overly favorable in your dealings with me. I think this shows up in professional evaluations all the time, especially if 360 is practiced. This is not necessarily bad. You want people to be encouraged. But, you also want truth to be told. You encourage this with your company culture and the instructions around reviews. “Notice the positive AND be honest.” “Growth is impeded when areas for growth are minimized, BUT motivation for growth is lacking when encouragement for growth is absent.” I’m reminded of a bumper sticker quote I shared with you some months back: “No one notices what I do until I don’t do it.” The job for anyone providing an evaluation, therefore, is to NOTICE what one does, AND notice the IMPACT when one doesn’t. Saying to someone, “Here are the ways you’ve really benefited the organization with your work, and here’s what happened and the impact it had when you stumbled in these instances,” is rarely taken poorly. Most people know they’ve screwed up at times. So, practice the 20% in noticing and praising what value people add, while being honest about the areas for growth.
Next, there is general grade inflation that happens with feedback for the trainer or facilitator. I’m seeing more and more likert scales that are 1-10, with 7 something like “Wonderful, could use a bit of improvement” and 10 equal to “An unparalled spiritual experience”. Stretch out the scale and provide ratings that are positive, but include a statement indicating not absolutely perfect. You don’t even have to label every number…just give labels for 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10. People will provide more honest evaluations by being given “in between” options.
Finally, there’s the age old problem of over promising and under delivering. In my opinion, this won’t be resolved until UNDER promising and OVER delivering is valued by management. Stretch goals are expected. Executives want to know what the outcome will be if everything goes 100% smoothly in the next quarter. Until reachable goals are more highly valued than stretch goals, quarters will continue to fall short of projections. Personally, I’d much rather plan based on a high-degree of confidence in the projections with a decent chance of beating those numbers.
In every case, the culture of the company has a lot to do with the prevalence of these problems. If there’s an atmosphere that you have to grow at X% or you’re doomed, everyone will always promise X% and find something to blame for missing the mark later. A culture of fear leads to everyone putting on their rose-colored glasses and report primarily that things are good. A culture of confidence can handle the truth. When people believe everything will be OK through the ups AND downs of business–that the company can handle both good and bad quarters–truth becomes an option.
Always interesting commentary from you, Stephen!
I don’t see Pauling’s quote speaking so much about the golden rule as he is about subjective error. His 20% is his way of putting a fine point on it … I really don’t think he is encouraging us to put an extra 20% in service to others. He’s just encouraging us to factor in the subjective error …
Error is, by definition, not good. Correcting the error might produce all kinds of good things, but the error in and of itself is not desirable. Therefore, we either need to adjust/adapt to the expected error of subjectivity (a la 20%) or we need to remove it, or minimize it, as we would any other error…
So, the 20% is not undesirable, it is simply necessary, unless we take other action to eliminate the subjective error.
And I think inflating our evaluations and feedback is not desirable! It is fraught with danger, especially if we don’t factor that in when we make decisions! I also want people to be encouraged, but I don’t think it’s necessary to inflate our evaluations or give false praise to produce that encouragement … You do note the importance of this, when you state: practice the 20% in noticing and praising what value people add, while being honest about the areas for growth … but the point here is that there is a propensity for us to NOT be honest about the areas for growth! To soft peddle that feedback … if I’m aware of that when receiving the feedback, I’ll therefore apply that 20% adjustment!
You go off the rails a bit for me when you get into overpromising and undelivering and culture. While I don’t disagree with you basic points here (as I understand them) they’re a bit off the “subjective error” track.
Always love the intellectual stimulation and the discourse Stephen!
Thanks for the reply…I don’t think I fully grasped the point about applying the 20% error adjustment when receiving an evaluation to get a truer picture of my performance. I was focused on the person providing the feedback, and how to correct the subjective error from the giver’s standpoint.
My paragraph on over promising and under delivering was addressing the sales directors scenario (I see now that I messed up the order), and the projections that never come to fruition. My claim was that inflated projections are at least partially the result of what is expected from their superiors.
Finally, my comment about culture simply referenced my amateur opinion that the instances of dissonance you note can be minimized by the culture leaders create. A culture of accuracy and honesty is possible, but only so far as leadership avoids unfounded optimism themselves. If I, as an employee, have to apply the 20% correction to company updates on how we’re doing and what the future looks like, I’m far less likely to do anything but inflate my own reporting up the chain.
Good topic, though…not that I’ve read a post of yours that isn’t insightful and wise! I recall you saying that when you started blogging, you didn’t know if you’d have enough ideas to keep a regular schedule of posts, but that you now have plenty of ideas just waiting to be blogged. I get the feeling blogging is good for thinking. Would you agree?
Stephen, we definitely see some things the same way. I, too, believe that projections (and other sharing of opinions) are warped a bit by the expectations of those in power and authority. An unfortunate dynamic, to be sure, yet a very real one.
And your cultural perspective is, again, right on, from my thinking. We are highly influenced by our environment, and you are right to call this out.
That said (both previous points) our individual awareness can lead to different individual decisions and behaviors, different and more productive, despite influences of managers and culture. In so doing, we counteract the unproductive influences, and who knows? where the tipping point is to bend the culture …
And, an emphatic YES! … the blogging is definitely generative. Good for thinking, as you say. Win-win, I hope; for me, definitely; for readers, hopefully.
All the best and thanks so much for engaging in the dialogue!
I have tried several ways to get a truer reading on whether one of my presentations was really effective. Here’s one of them.
Many times after a presentation there is a reception of some sort. Place a peer or subordinate at one of the tables and ask that person to move the conversation at some point to the presentation by saying something like “I enjoyed that subject but I think he could have expanded on …”. Many times this invites the participants to share some thoughts on how the presentation could have been better. Then the peer or subordinate reports back to the presenter, and the next presentation is ever better.
This is awesome. Your technique opens the door for honest, constructive feedback … it models the behavior you seek; it makes it easy for people to say how they experienced the presentation (inherently subjective) but without the inaccuracy (subjective error).
Awesome!
At my school we try to live–not by the golden rule–but by the platinum rule which is: “Theat others the way THEY want to be treated.” The golden tule presumes everyone WANTSto be treated the way I do… There is a good link about this that you may enjoy! http://www.alessandra.com/abouttony/aboutpr.asp. 20% more is a great idea, but we need to determine if we are giving 20% more of what someone else values… Just a thought….
Love the platinum rule, and I also think that’s better than the golden rule precisely because it eliminates that presumption … Love that you’re socializing that in your school!!!
This post is not so much about the golden rule as it is about the subjective error that is all too common … I think Pauling just saw an opportunity to use that well known phrase to make his point … and the 20% speaks to the need to account for it when we are on the recieving end of the error, and perhaps giving us pause when we are about to commit it!