TL;DR (AI-powered): Front-loading disappointment by saying “no” or “maybe” instead of overpromising helps teams to manage expectations, fosters transparency, and builds stakeholder trust by focusing on realistic commitments and iterative planning.
The other day I learned about an expression, although I’m not sure of the origin:
Front-load disappointment.
It came about in a discussion on why sometimes teams seem to prefer to delay bad news. Even though they might have a pretty clear view of something not being realistic, they might prefer to stick to making a commitment hoping that circumstances might change in due time, and so that they don’t need to tell any bad news in the end.
I believe there’s a combination of human nature (of tending to be optimistic about what ourselves are capable of accomplishing in the short-term) with internal incentives within an organization. The latter part functioning as reinforcing feedback, since I am pretty sure that, in a context of an organization that keeps a tighter accountability on keeping commitments made, would at least balance out, to some extent, that human nature.
Picture this… Imagine you have two teams, one that tends to say “yes” to anything first, although that might with some frequency turn into delays in delivery later on; while the other prefers to take a more cautious approach to when they say “yes”, and will often say “no” (or “not now”), but with some frequency will get back shortly to turn that into a “yes” next. Which option you think stakeholders would tend to prefer in the long run?
So that’s the idea of front-loading disappointment, that comes about as a reminder of taking a perspective that is more demand-oriented (as opposed to supply-side, what we are capable of…) – that’s correct yet another example of that overarching implicaton. It’s about acknowledging that, from a stakeholder / customer point of view…
It’s better to hear a “not now” or “maybe” first, that later turns into a “yes”, than the other way around.
That all gets better as we learn, and get stakeholders also used to communicate more probabilistically. Keeping transparency also front-loaded, giving visibility on where their expected needs are in comparison with other options, and making a clear commitment to a more iterative planning approach that gives them insight on whether and potentially when (in the near future) their expectations might be fulfilled.
That is to say that the “not now” or “maybe” first is also rather an invitation to engage. So to take the additional time to understand even better what is meant to be achieved, which also should help to make things flow more smoothly later on – when finally we get to prioritize and start doing something about the given problem.
It’s quite likely that the bit of additional time before pulling to work is precisely what we needed so that we could focus more on the “what can be done” as opposed to bias the conversation on “when will it be ready” (which tends to be the default). There’s surely little harm to be had by deferring that commitment a little while if the trade-off might be a better shaped up option.
In fact, I would claim the “disappointment” bit is somewhat exaggerated in the naming of the idea… Since I’m pretty sure, on the long run, when done well, we will tend to rather see more of a trust and understanding that’s the right thing to do, from the stakeholders’ and customers’ standpoint. For as long as there’s indeed clarity and perspective on what it takes for the “not now” or “maybe” to turn into a “yes”, as well as that once the “yes” comes there will be focus and drive to get something out shortly. This builds trust and understanding, creating another reinforcing feedback loop.
That is, in a nutshell, and with yet another practical example, the power of thinking in systems (if you ask me).
***
The blog / newsletter will enter in a little “sabbatical” (due to a couple of personal reasons, including some early summer holidays)... I will see if I can manage a couple of revisited topics here and there, but for the next about a month, I will surely not keep the regular weekly cadence.
By Rodrigo Sperb, feel free to connect, I'm happy to engage and interact. I’m passionate about leading to achieve better outcomes with better ways of working. How can I help you?
I liked the article. I look at disappointment in the lenses of teams that over promise and under deliver all the time. I would prefer a honest assessment up front of not now or maybe instead of over committing and under delivering. I think it's about being over optimistic.