Why Standards Are Healthier than Expectations

The reasons we need a new approach to our relationships at work and home.

Second in a three-part series.

In part one of this series, I discussed why expectations are unhealthy in relationships, if not harmful. The fundamental reason, in my view, is that expectations don't take empathy into account. And because empathy is a core competency of emotional intelligence, I believe that when we consistently have expectations, we're being emotionally unintelligent.

So what's the alternative to setting expectations? What's healthier and better for your relationships? What can be more emotionally intelligent?

Setting standards.

I started doing this consciously about six years ago. Since then, my relationships have changed significantly. I've chosen which ones I want to grow and which ones I don't. I've invested greater time with people I want to be with (even remotely), and limited the time with those I don't. I've communicated with greater clarity. I don't get offended or take anything personally. And I don't get upset about anything with anyone; in fact, I can't recall the last time I was angry or frustrated with someone at work or in my personal life.

I hope some of this is due simply to getting older (and hopefully a bit wiser and more mature ;-) but I'm convinced most of it is because I replaced my expectations with standards.

STANDARDS DEFINED

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a "standard" (in the context of which I'm using the word) is:

• something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example

• something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality

There are two important elements of these meanings I want to point out.

1. We have authority in our relationships, not necessarily over other people but in how we manage ourselves in them. As adults, we increasingly gain a sense of self, we learn what we like and don't like in others, we discover our personal values, etc. All of that helps build a sense of authority in how we choose relationships, navigate them, and whether we continue them.

2. A standard serves as a model, example, and measure of value or quality. It communicates to us what is important and what has "currency." In other words, it brings to life the ideas in #1 above...our sense of self, likes, dislikes, values, etc. For example, if one of my values is to be polite with others, I probably have a standard of not cussing in my interactions with them. By not using foul language, I have established a model, example, and measure of value for myself. I'm not asking myself to meet someone else's expectation, I'm asking myself to meet my own standard.

STANDARDS AND EMPATHY

Perhaps the hardest thing in building relationships, both in the workplace and at home, is using empathy. I've already argued that expectations are unhealthy and harmful because they usually don't take empathy into account. So what about standards?

The beauty of setting standards is that empathy is taken off the table. That doesn't mean we are unempathetic or ignore empathy. Instead, it becomes irrelevant with standards because we set them for ourselves, not for others.

For example, one of my standards in relationships is to spend more time with those who have a shared love of personal growth. The standard only relates to me, not to them. I don't have an expectation for anyone to have a love for personal growth...I have a standard to be with those who do.

This doesn't mean I'm not empathetic with those who don't meet the standard in my opinion. It simply means that I'm not likely to spend as much time with them as I will with those who do meet my standard.

At work, like many managers I have a standard to hold a weekly one-on-one with each of my direct reports. It's not an expectation, it's a clearly defined standard that doesn't require empathy. Indeed, there are times when either of us can't attend (illness, vacation, unexpected issue at home, etc.) and we honor that by either rescheduling or skipping the meeting. Those moments obviously take empathy into account but they're a result of the application of the standard, not the standard itself.

WHY STANDARDS ARE HEALTHIER

Similar to the long list I have of why expectations aren't healthy, I've done the same for why standards are healthier, and put them into three distinct buckets.

1. Standards are more concrete and objective.

There is specificity and clarity to well-crafted standards that allow us to know whether they've been met or not. They're binary: either the standard was met or it wasn't.

For example, a common expectation managers have of employees is "commitment to teamwork." The manager or employee can't prove commitment because it's a subjective word with no specificity (same with teamwork). But if a manager sets a standard that "anytime a team member asks for help to meet a deadline, at least one teammate gives their help," it's concrete, objective, and measurable. There's logic and reason behind it (the manager values teamwork). Both sides would know if the standard was met or not.

Similarly, a common expectation that parents have of teenagers is to "be home on time." When the child asks "what is 'on time'?" they're looking for something concrete and objective, something that has logic and reason behind it (the parents' "why"). So when a specific curfew time is set, it's more of a standard than an expectation.

2. Standards foster an "us vs. it" mindset.

When a person or organization sets a standard, there is a collective effort to meet it and it usually applies to a larger group. In the "commitment to teamwork" example above, everyone on the team would be held to the same standard. It's something that sits to the sideof the people who are asked to meet it, unlike an expectation which is something that sits between people.

If a standard isn't being met, there is often a conversation about either (a) how to increase the likelihood of it being met, or (b) whether the standard needs to be changed. There's a sense of collaboration and teamwork when it comes to standards. The effects of power, hierarchy, and seniority are replaced by equity, commonality, and community.

For example, if a family has a standard of everyone being at the dinner table together, and one of the parents gets a new job requiring a longer commute, it's likely that dinner time will be pushed back to maintain the standard. Or if a customer support manager sets a standard for average call time to be five minutes, and the actual average is 5.5 minutes, the team is apt to work together to figure out how to meet the standard or discuss whether the standard should be changed.

3. Standards are more neutral and innocuous.

In one of my workshops on standards, I ask people to share the emotions they feel when a specific expectation isn't met, and then the same when a specific standard isn't met. Almost everyone tends to notice that there's a difference: standards don't evoke the same emotional response or to the same extreme. I've heard people say that when an expectation isn't met, they may feel anger or sadness but when a standard isn't met, it's more like frustration or disappointment...less extreme emotions.

My theory is that it's because of #2 above: standards are specific, concrete, and apply to more than one person. For some reason that perhaps psychologists could explain, we're more "forgiving" when a benchmark we've set for multiple people isn't met by one of them (e.g.: a standard), versus a benchmark we set for just that one person (e.g.: an expectation).

In fact, I've noticed that I even feel different when I say the phrase, "I have a standard," instead of "I have an expectation." The former is innocuous; it doesn't arouse strong feelings in me, if any at all. The latter, however, immediately gives me a slight sense of anxiety. And I've heard from others who suffer from chronic anxiety that simply thinking or saying that phrase, "I have an expectation," elicits a much stronger reaction than "I have a standard."

STANDARDS AT WORK

In part one of this series, I listed a number of common expectations that managers and employees have of each other. Examples include:

• dependable work performance

• honesty in interactions

• feedback, mentorship, and training

• be dedicated and balanced

In my opinion, these statements are actually more like values. They are things that people or organizations believe are important. And because we all have different values, we define and interpret them differently; what "honesty in interactions" means to me is probably different than what it means to you.

Most companies today have core values and all managers have their personal values for the workplace. This is why I believe that values are one of the easiest places to begin when it comes to setting standards at work.

There are two additional starting points that are just as easy: job descriptions and operational processes. The cool thing about these is that standard-setting can now occur at a departmental, functional, and individual level; these starting points become a simple path to building a culture of standards that can spread throughout the organization.

GETTING HEALTHIER

Since the time I began talking about standards, it seems to me that people and organizations who say they have them are higher performing, more satisfied, and - dare I say - more "successful." They have greater clarity, stronger relationships and cultures, and less conflict than those who have expectations.

***

Part three is here.