The art of setting standards

Let’s compare two situations. In the first, you’re half-way through a presentation when your boss rightfully points out that you could do with a few extra figures to illustrate your point. In the second, your boss walks up to you at 5 o’clock on a Friday afternoon and asks you to prepare a report, in French and in German, for Monday morning – on the off chance that some foreign partners might drop in... In both cases, your superior could be described as “demanding”, to say the least. But in the first, they could simply be described as intolerant of mediocre or unfinished work; whereas in the latter, they seem to be unreasonably harsh... To be demanding, but not too demanding, is no easy feat. It requires good judgment and moderation. But where should we set the bar? And what separates the “strict-but-fair” from the arbitrary tyrant?

Beyond nitpicking

On daily basis, demanding bosses have to assume the role of the bad guy. If their commands require too much of an effort, or if such effort is deemed unnecessary, they’ll be discarded as capricious or whimsical. Why torture people with petty details? Is the best not considered the enemy of the good? The truth is, standards are rarely rejected because they’re too high – they’re rejected because they serve little or no purpose. That’s when the leader’s perfectionism comes across as nitpicking, and employees roll their eyes and ask: is any of this really necessary?  

‘The more demanding we are of ourselves, the more satisfied we can be of our work’

That’s also when the boss’ legitimacy takes a hit. If, on the other hand, they command enough respect, the standards they set will be seen as necessary – and employees will gladly rise to them. The French, known for their finicky approach to most things in life, from food to clothing to interior design, have a word for it – “exigence” – which French philosopher André Comte-Sponville defines as follows: “a confident and assured desire, which won’t settle for the mediocre or the worst. The opposite of spinelessness (for oneself) and complacency (for others).”

Exigence, or the art of having high standards, should be the prerogative of both parties: the boss, of course, but also their employees, who can derive considerable pleasure from the situation. For deep down, they know that high standards are the key to success. Or as Aristotle puts it, “virtue always aims for the most difficult, for the good is always of a higher quality when challenged” (Nichomachean Ethics). The more demanding we are of ourselves, the more satisfied we can be of our work. 

Good cop, bad cop? Neither...

High standards can help counter-balance the virtue of benevolence, which has become increasingly widespread in the business world. Nowadays companies don’t just want their workforce to perform, they want them to find fulfilment too – sometimes at the risk of complacency: employees need to feel challenged to remain motivated; undemanding managers give the wrong impression of themselves and their team, by implying that they don’t trust in their abilities.  

‘High standards can be beneficial, as long as they’re compatible with the individual’s own level of professional conscientiousness’

Worse still, they can force employees to renounce their own high standards, by imposing unreasonable work rhythms or objectives. The French psychologist Yves Clot shows that workers often derive self-esteem from their own high standards, which helps alleviate stress. Work well done is a source of pleasure and pride, while most often, suffering comes not from overly strict requirements, but from the feeling of having done a botched job. This means that high standards can be beneficial, as long as they’re compatible with the individual’s own level of professional conscientiousness. 

Know your limits 

Finding the right balance between excessive perfectionism and complacency is a matter of trial and error. A form of practical wisdom that’s tested on a daily basis, as we learn to be neither too demanding, nor not enough. This middle way between excess and deficiency is precisely where Aristotle placed virtue. As he demonstrates in his Nichomachean Ethics, “vice is an excess or deficiency of virtue, and virtue is the mean”. From this perspective, high standards are only virtuous insofar as they’re neither harsh nor permissive. 

But to determine what we can fairly expect from someone, it’s important to first assess their abilities and limits. This is where the art of setting standards becomes a subtle one: for it must adapt to each individual. Or as Spinoza professes in his Political Treatise, it should aim “not to mock, lament, or execrate human actions, but to understand them.”

Consultation and feedback 

When managers hand out assignments, a certain amount of interaction should ensue. In The Power In and Around Organisations (1983), Henry Mintzberg recommends that specific standards be “developed in cooperation with those to whom they are to apply”, and that these people also be given “frequent feedback”. Prior consultation and follow-up feedback enlighten both parties: thus managers discover what they can reasonably expect from their team, while employees come to understand what’s expected of them. 

‘Just as there is a perfect place to set the bar for each high jumper, so also would there seem to be some theoretically optimum profit target for each corporate division’

— Henry Mintzberg

This is also true of organisations. Mintzberg goes on to explain that “the level at which the targets are set has been shown to influence behavior, effort declining when they are either too easy or too difficult to attain. In effect, just as there is a perfect place to set the bar for each high jumper, so also would there seem to be some theoretically optimum profit target for each corporate division.” The right standard can aptly be described as a median value: excellence can only be achieved when objectives are adapted to the company, or the individual team charged with carrying them out. 

Finding the “middle way”

That’s not to say the right standard can be measured like a point on a metre, where some optimal level of effort needs to be reached. Sometimes, it simply means avoiding extremes. To illustrate this point, philosopher Philippe Chevallier draws on the music of Claude François, a 1970s French pop icon, in whom he sees a perfect example of the “middle way”. His catchy hits, he argues, are devoid of experimental digressions or lofty breaks; but they work, they’re efficient. Why? Because the artist carefully trod the middle ground between virtuosity and lousiness. In other words, his music was perfectly in place. 

‘The middle way isn’t just an average – from the point of view of human action, it’s an ideal’

— Philippe Chevallier 

The middle way can be mediocre, but also brilliant, Chevallier points out. As such, Claude François’ music perfectly illustrates Aristotle’s point: “The middle way isn’t just an average – from the point of view of human action, it’s an ideal”, Chevallier explains. “Any freely acquired disposition that manages to avoid two extremes, and remain in this state of equilibrium, is in fact a summit.” The same goes for company life, where, through a combination of hard work, communication, and feedback, one can eventually learn to “rely on oneself, but on a reinforced self, since it has become its own, intractable constraint”. In other words, setting the right standard is a subtle balancing act, which means demanding as much of ourselves as we do of others.  

Picture: © FancyCrave/Unsplash