The temptation in our work is to cater to the lowest common denominator*.  If you’re an artist you want to make something that people “get.”  If you’re a communicator you want to develop a talk that people can “relate to.”  If you’re in a professional field you want to design a product that appeals to a “wide audience.”  Or if you’re a social worker you want a program that is “easy to understand.”

The problem is, this leads us to cater to the lowest common denominator.  We built programs, create art, and design communications for the people who are least likely to benefit from our efforts.

We do this in part because we are a compassionate people.  Part of our culture is to care for others.  We genuinely want to help.  But what if going after the lowest common denominator is the exact opposite thing we should do?  What if “dumbing things down” is harmful?  What if it’s our expectations that help to shape someone’s behavior?  If that’s true, the lower we set our expectations, the lower the performance.

Psychologists actually have a term for this: the Pygmalion effect.

Perhaps the most famous example of the Pygmalion effect is in the movie Trading Places.  At the start of the movie two brothers argue over whether someone is born successful or someone is made successful.  It’s the nature / nurture debate.  To settle their bet they destroy the life of Louis Winthorpe (Dan Aykroyd) and bring in Billy Ray Valentine (Eddie Murphy) to replace him.  Essentially they take a well educated Aykroyd and put him no the street while encouraging Murphy, a “street hustler” to become something more than he ever dreamed.  Essentially they trade places.  Shockingly Murphy finds himself succeeding.

That is what the power of expectations can do.

Now, a word of caution before we go much further.  This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t build programs for people who are struggling.  Or that we should ignore serious problems because we’ve somehow defined that as “lowest common denominator.”  Instead it’s to emphasize the fact that we need to build special programs that reach just them.  We need to set realistic goals for our programs, art, and speeches.  A program, a piece of art, or a speech that is so broad that it captures everyone will lose the vast majority of people, because it doesn’t hold them with high enough regard.  The same is true of something too technical.  If our audience is so small, we can’t take that to anyone else.

The Trading Places example obviously fictional, but the Pygmalion effect has been demonstrated in studies in a variety of settings.  It’s been seen in school, courtrooms, and the military, and the workplace.

Our expectations play a much greater role in shaping  behavior around us then we think.  When we expect someone to perform poorly, they do.  What incentive is there for them to succeed if we tell them they can’t?  Imagine what more you could do with your art, your communication, your project at work if you expected more from people, not less.

Motivation is more than just what someone brings to the game.  It’s how we treat them.  It’s the respect we show them.  It’s how we value them.  So if you want to motivate people to change then don’t cater to the lowest common denominator.  Set your goals at a reasonable, yet high level.  And watch them flourish.

Photo provided by flickr

Resources

Pygmalion Effect – Important Management Secrets

Wikipedia: Pygmalion Effect

*yes, I realize that mathematically this is not really the correct phrase, but colloquially it explains the phenomenon