Central Principle 7

Set Your Minimum Standards

In any situation or relationship there are minimum requirements or standards you consider necessary for it to be acceptable (quite different from ideal or perfect.) While still striving to obtain the ideal, define your minimum standards. Measure quality or performance as being above or below your minimum acceptable standard.

Steps To Applying This Principle

Success Story

GENERAL INFORMATION

Just as you have some idea of what perfection is in most any situation or relationship, there is also some level of performance you consider acceptable and satisfactory, even though it is less than ideal. Although you naturally strive to obtain what you consider ideal, you can know you are doing a good job when you at least measure up to your minimum standards of performance.

The idea of distinguishing minimum standards from an ideal is not new. There are examples all around us. To be admitted to a university, for example, one must meet academic requirements that are essential and non-negotiable though usually less than the ideal of straight A's. To obtain a driver license, one need not be a perfect driver although there are specific requirements that must be met.

Knowing in advance what the prerequisites are lets you know where you stand and what your choices are. If you do not currently qualify, for instance, you can generally do something about it. Fortunately, even though you are not perfect, you can objectively and confidently know when you do measure up to the minimum requirements or what to do when you do not.

Some people, however, worry that identifying and focusing on a minimum acceptable standard will drive them or a relationship toward mediocrity. They are afraid of losing sight of the long term goal of excellence or perfection. To the contrary, as long as you have a clear goal or vision, defining a minimum standard gives you a baseline or benchmark to make sure you are first maintaining, and then exceeding, as you strive toward your goal.

REASONS FOR SETTING A MINIMUM STANDARD

Everyone wants to succeed in life, to measure up. Often the definition of success, however, involves obtaining a seemingly impossible ideal relationship, position, or performance (a family like Ozzie and Harriet, a perfectly neat and clean house, being the president of a company, or having a picture perfect body).

Striving for perfection is desirable, but what happens when you measure your performance against a standard of perfection. How can you ever feel that your present level is acceptable? If you ever do obtain that which you consider to be ideal, the odds are you will simply raise the level of what you consider ideal. You never measure up. No matter how hard you try or how well you do, it is not good enough--at least as measured against the ideal of perfection.

Result: Continuously assessing your performance as inadequate is upsetting and discouraging and drains valuable energy that could better be used in productive pursuits.

Being totally satisfied with a minimally acceptable job, on the other hand, without striving toward an ideal can interfere with your progress and lead to personal stagnation. Without an ideal to strive toward, you will not be at your best. That is why successful businesses and individuals develop mission statements, core values, and goals to strive toward, knowing full well that daily performance will be somewhat less than the ideal.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SET YOUR OWN STANDARDS

It is your right to determine the minimum requirements or standards you consider necessary for a relationship or personal performance to be acceptable. You can set your standards at whatever level you like; it is up to you. You could, for instance, unreasonably decide that anything less than a perfect spouse is unacceptable. Or, at the other extreme, you could decide anyone who breathes and is willing to marry you qualifies.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE OTHERS TO LIVE UP TO YOUR STANDARDS

Although your standards may define your requirements for another person's performance (in a marital, business, or social relationship), you do not, however, have the right to force someone to accept or live up to your standard. That is their choice. Nor does having the right to set your standards mean you are necessarily right.

Key point: The word standard or requirement refers to what you consider necessary for a performance or relationship to be acceptable to you; it does NOT mean you have the right to force someone to accept or live up to your requirements.

THREE BENEFITS OF DEFINING YOUR MINIMUM STANDARDS

 

First: Rather than comparing yourself to some ideal--and constantly failing--you have a practical and objective benchmark from which to measure your performance. You can then measure your performance as being at, below, or above your standard. No doubt you will feel encouraged in some areas where you are at or above standard, while in other areas you will see the need for improvement. It is refreshing to be able to feel good at some level of performance (in marriage, at work, at home, or in personal activities) while still striving for a higher level. You will also find yourself having more control over evaluating your success, since you can rely more on your own criteria and judgement than on what others think.

 

Second: When your minimum standards are clear to you and you are adhering to them, you send a clear signal, often unspoken, to others of what you require of them and of yourself. When others know where your line is--that which distinguishes the things you are willing to negotiate from the things you are unwilling to negotiate--they are generally more comfortable--if not at first, at least later. They know where they stand with you. Then they can more securely examine the available choices in the relationship because you have drawn a line. For instance, if honesty is one of your minimum standards, others will know there is no point in arguing or trying to manipulate you into doing something dishonest.

Of course, if someone finds your standards or requirements unacceptable, they do not have to adhere to them. The relationship, however, will be off balance and unlikely to progress until each other's minimum standards are mutually acceptable.

 

Third: You have an objective criteria to evaluate where someone else stands relative to your standards. In marriage, for instance, if you consider respect an essential, non-negotiable ingredient, you are able to accurately assess your spouse's behavior in that area. If there is a problem, you can clearly communicate and focus on it until a solution is found, even if it takes weeks or months.

 

In every healthy relationship, whether personal or business minimum standards are mutually understood and respected. The process of identifying the basic rules or requirements for the relationship often occurs naturally. If you are in a relationship where things are going well, you may not need to formally identify and dicuss your minimum standards.

 

The idea of minimum standards is depicted in the diagram on the following page.

STEPS TO APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE

First, general steps for applying this principle are given. These steps apply in any situation. Additional steps are suggested for application in four special situations:

1.  
2. In a relationship between peers (premarital or marital)

    

3. In a relationship with non-peers (grandparents, parents, or children)

    

4. In a relationship where one person has authority over the other (in business, civic, or church organizations)

    

5. In private or personal activities (exercise, diet, neatness, car care, and so forth)

GENERAL STEPS

1.  
2. Make a list of things you consider necessary and non-negotiable (your minimum standards) for a relationship, performance, or situation to be acceptable.

   Note: Although you could come up with something unreasonable, it is extremely unlikely. I have gone through this exercise with hundreds of people with less than a handful even listing one unreasonable requirement.

   Reason: This is not a wish list. You are making a clear distinction between your ideal preferences and your minimum requirements.

    

3. After you complete your list, go back and add specific examples for each thing on your list. When you have general items on your list, such as "Respect," make sure you provide specific, behavioral examples that allow you and your companion to objectively determine whether that standard is being adhered to or not.

   Example: Respect means to me, no yelling or name calling. It means we acknowledge each other's right to differing opinions and feelings. Words like, `I understand' or `I see we have a different perspective on this, and that's okay' are frequently heard.

    

4. If possible, have another person--one who is objective--review your list of minimum standards. His reaction and comments can help you evaluate the reasonableness of your standards, and also suggest some ways to add to or refine the items on your list.

    

5. Use your minimum standards as a criteria to measure quality or performance, while continuing to strive to achieve your ideal.

ADDITIONAL STEPS

In a relationship between peers (pre-marital, marital, friendships):

1.  
2. Before sharing your minimum standards with your companion, invite him to make a list of his own minimum standards. Unless he is given an opportunity to clarify his standards before you share yours, he is apt to feel overwhelmed or pressured.

   A common concern many voice is, "I do not have the right to set standards for how someone else acts." The answer to this is that you are defining standards for a relationship that is acceptable to you. Whether someone else agrees or not is up to them.

    

3. While reading each other's minimum standards, look first for things you both share. Next, look at things that at first glance seem to conflict.
   1. Caution: Make sure you understand each other's standards before you attempt to resolve any differences.

    

4. If you do not understand what is meant by a certain thing, ask questions ("What do you mean by . . . ," or, "Could you give me an example of . . . ?").

    

5. In reconciling discrepancies between each others' standards, seek to find ways to honor each others standards without violating your own.
   1. Key point: When discussing discrepancies show respect for your companion's opinions, feelings, and standards, while seeking a mutually satisfactory solution.

    

6. If, however, you are unable to find a way to honor each others' standards without violating your own integrity--especially in a marriage--I encourage you to seek professional help. See chapter How To Select A Therapist.

IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH NON-PEERS

1.  
2. After you write your minimum standards, including specific examples, kindly announce your position.
   1. Key point: This is not a discussion or debate, but a declaration or announcement of the standards by which you live in a particular relationship. There is no need to defend, justify, or excuse the standards you set or the line you draw. The following three steps are helpful in making your announcement.
   •  
   • State your love and appreciation for the person.

      

   • Share your minimum standards.

      

   • Share your hopes for the relationship.

    

3. Sharing your standards in a letter can be helpful.

   Result: You give the other person a chance to privately read and think about what you said, thereby increasing the likelihood of him understanding that you are doing this for the mutual benefit of the relationship rather than trying to control him. A letter is especially helpful if the other person is apt to initially misinterpret or overreact.

IN A RELATIONSHIP WHERE ONE PERSON HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE OTHER

Note: When you are reporting to someone with authority over you, it is usually necessary to obtain their approval. In essence, you are writing your own job description. You are defining the standards by which your performance will be measured by you and your boss.

1.  
2. After you have written your minimum standards, schedule a time to meet with the person to whom you report. Preface your presentation by explaining you wish to do the best possible job and would like him to review some standards of performance you came up with. In my experience it is rare for someone to set their standards too low. It is more likely for them to be too high, too idealistic, such that the boss's feedback suggests a lesser, more realistic standard. When you and he agree on your standards, you have an objective, reasonable criteria to measure and evaluate your performance.

   Result: You can objectively evaluate your own job performance, without having to anxiously await someone else's evaluation.

    

3. Strive to meet, maintain, and then exceed your minimum standards.

    

4. As your skills increase, you may wish to raise your minimum standards (and, in some cases, your ideals as well).

IN PRIVATE, PERSONAL ACTIVITIES

1.  
2. Make a list of that which you consider necessary for your performance to be acceptable to you (not to anyone else). Be specific.

   Example: At five feet 10 inches, I consider my weight acceptable as long as it is between 168 and 172 pounds, with 165 pounds ideal. I also exercise a minimum of 3 times a week, 4 to 5 times ideally. As long as my weight is between 168 and 172 pounds and I exercise at least 3 times a week, I am pleased; when I do better, I am delighted.

   Example: My wife, Shelly, would ideally like the house immaculate, but with five children and a husband, that ideal is usually unobtainable. If she thought of the ideal as her minimum standard, she would be frustrated much of the time. Instead, she has minimum standards of order and cleanliness she considers acceptable, though not ideal (beds made in the morning, kitchen cleaned after each meal, and house picked up before dinner).

SUCCESS STORY

As I was growing up I knew precisely what kind of marriage I did not want to have. Even so, I was afraid I would become emotionally involved with someone, get married, and then wake up some morning realizing I made a mistake. I did not trust my feelings, by themselves, to help me make a wise decision on who to marry.

To make matters worse, I also realized that dwelling on what I was afraid of would keep those things prominent in my mind, thereby increasing the likelihood of getting trapped in the very thing I was determined to avoid. I did some private research to find out what a good marriage--at least for me--would be like. I observed lots of marriages. I even watched "Leave It to Beaver."

MAKING A LIST

I began to develop a mental list of characteristics I felt were necessary for me to have a good marriage. What I came up with was not the typical, pie-in-the-sky, marital wish list. They were the rock-bottom necessary ingredients, the things I would not compromise on. They were the non-negotiables, my minimum standards for marriage. I included things like commitment, fidelity, respect, honesty, friendship, self-reliance, and common values.

As I dated girls, I kept my list in mind. I only wanted to get serious with someone who felt comfortable with the standards I considered essential for a successful marriage. At some point--not necessarily on the first date--I would bring up various items to discuss. Shelly, my wife, not only met each of my minimum standards, she exceeded them.

AN EXAMPLE OF A MINOR MINIMUM STANDARD

The following story, although basically true, is told like a parable--not because it had any real significance in our courtship or in our marriage--but because of the valuable lessons it can teach.

One evening after church we were talking about marriage, and I realized I had another item on my list of minimum standards I had not thought about and had not shared with Shelly. It was something trite and immature but nevertheless something on which I did not plan to compromise. That is, I do not eat green beans. I explained that no one forces me to eat green beans, not my mom and not my wife. I asked Shelly how she felt about that.

At first she laughed, never having considered such a thing. Then after she thought about it, she told me that if she went shopping for dinner, came home and prepared, cooked, and served a meal, she would expect her husband to have enough respect and courtesy for her to at least try a little of anything she served. "Yes," she said, "If I served green beans to my husband, I would expect him to have some." I smiled and shook my head, saying, "No, not this husband." We had a little problem. She had a minimum standard I considered unacceptable, and I had a minimum standard she considered unacceptable.

THE DANGER OF CAPITULATION

Perhaps someone would have advised me--for the sake of an otherwise great relationship--to go ahead and eat green beans once a week, even if I did feel like they were being crammed down my throat. But if I continued to think I was being forced, feelings of resentment would build week after week. Then, after several years, the problem could escalate beyond a little green bean issue to one of emotional conflict.

Someone might have advised Shelly to simply forego serving green beans at home and order them for herself when out at a restaurant. But if she thought she was restricted from serving green beans, she might feel controlled or trapped. If the problem continued unresolved, some degree of stress would be placed on the marriage--not because of green beans per se but because of the accompanying attitudes and feelings.

Just about everyone has at least one green bean dilemma on their list of minimum standards. These little problems in marriage are like slivers in your foot. They may be small, but if ignored they can become infected and cause a great deal of pain. Although most of the things on your list of minimum standards are much more important than green beans, if the little things are not taken care of along with the big things, even the best relationships can deteriorate in time.

Key point: If you have a conflict over a small issue that is important to you, resolve it.

WORKING TOWARD A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE SOLUTION

Shelly and I decided to see if we could find a way to respect each other's standard or requirement without capitulating or compromising either one's integrity. Even though it was a little problem, it took us an hour and a half to resolve it. But it was worth it. First of all, neither of us ridiculed or attempted to pressure the other to change his position. I especially appreciated that because I knew I was not coming from the most rational and mature place. Shelly was the one who finally proposed the solution that, to this day, works. In a kind way and with a smile on her face, she said, "John, if you will tell me, ahead of time, what food you are too immature to eat, I will only serve that food to the children and me. Would that be all right?" That sounded great to me.

SOME ADVICE

I encourage all single adults, regardless of age or circumstance, to write their minimum standards for marriage. Then, when the time comes to make one of the most important decisions in life, they will not be left to rely on their emotions alone. They will have an objective criteria to assist them in deciding whether or not marrying a particular person is a wise decision. A wise prophet once said, "The decision to marry is best made with 90% head and 10% heart."

For those who are already married, it is not too late. You can still list your minimum standards and discuss them with your spouse. Many marital problems can be resolved simply by clarifying your standards and working toward a way to respect each others basic requirements.

Setting Minimum Standards for Relatives

Vance and Sobrina loved Vance's parents and enjoyed their visits--which occurred several times a year. The grandparents were an important part of their family. They helped with the down payment on the house and spent a lot of time caring for and playing with the children. The only problem was that Vance and Sobrina did not drink or serve alcohol in their home, and Grandpa was an alcoholic who brought his jug of wine whenever he visited. The situation was discussed, debated, and ignored for years. Vance and Sabrina never took a firm stand.

Key point: Without clear and firm minimum standards, it is difficult to take a stand in a relationship. You thereby become susceptible to capitulation or manipulation.

Asking Grandpa to not drink seemed unthinkable, yet having him continue to drink in front of the children was unacceptable. Vance and Sobrina felt they were in a bind. They asked me to help them find an acceptable way to tell Grandpa not to bring alcohol into their home. I pointed out that they were asking me to help them accomplish two things, one of which they could control and the other they could not. Finding a kind, honest, and constructive way to communicate their wishes to Grandpa was definitely achievable. Whether or not he responded to their request in a reasonable or unreasonable manner was out of their control.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SET YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR A RELATIONSHIP

I explained to Vance and Sobrina that they have the right to determine the standards for acceptable behavior in their home for children, parents, or guests. It was their choice. The decision not to have alcohol in their home was easy for them, but they were still worried about how their parents would react.

Vance was afraid Grandpa would feel rejected, unappreciated, and possibly never visit them again. I understood Vance's concern. Nevertheless, I reassured him that when Grandpa is given the choice between visiting his family without bringing his jug or not visiting his family, I expected he would find a way to accept his son's standard. Even if Grandpa was upset at first, he would probably get over it. I reminded him that blood is thicker than alcohol.

TAKING A STAND

With fear and trembling (Thanksgiving was a month away and grandparents were planning to visit) Vance and Sobrina wrote a letter with three parts. First, they sincerely expressed their love and appreciation to their parents. Second, they explained their family policy of no alcohol in their home and kindly statedthat Grandpa would no longer be able to drink in their home--of course, what he did outside of their home was up to him. Third, they shared their hopes for a continued close and loving relationship.

Fortunately, I had prepared them for the worst. A week after sending the letter, Vance and Sobrina received a note saying, "After all we have done for you, you treat us like this. We know when we are not wanted. We will never step foot in your home again." I reviewed with them their right to set the standards in their home and the grandparents' right to accept or reject those standards. No one was rejecting anybody. The grandparents were struggling--albeit not very gracefully--with how to deal with their adult children's rules in much the same way a child might struggle with parents' rules. I reminded Vance and Sobrina that misinterpretation, tantrums, and rebellion are not limited to two-year-olds and teenagers.

The End Result--A Better Relationship

When the grandparents did not visit over Thanksgiving, it was all Vance and Sobrina could do to resist giving in. It just broke their heart thinking of losing the closeness their family had previously enjoyed. I reassured them that I have never seen grandparents permanently disown their children or cease to associate with them, when the children take a firm yet reasonable stand. I have assisted over one hundred adult children to respectfully announce to parents that certain behaviors were unacceptable (behaviors such as giving unsolicited advice, making critical comments, dropping in unannounced, and criticizing the adult children's child-raising practices). Although it is possible for parents to be so proud or disturbed that they would reject their own flesh and blood over some issue, it is extremely unlikely.

About two weeks before Christmas a wonderful letter arrived. Grandpa and Grandma announced they would be coming for Christmas without their jug of wine. At the end of the visit, Grandpa told Bill they had a great time--in fact, a better time than usual. The family had progressed through a difficult and awkward stage. Now the relationship was more mature and more loving than before.

SETTING MINIMUM STANDARDS IN THE WORKPLACE

Kyle was the vice-president of a large national corporation. Even though he was working sixty to eighty hours a week, there was always more to do. Although his boss (the president) was pleased, he kept pushing Kyle for greater and greater performance. Kyle found himself suffering with frequent headaches and a deteriorating home life.

I asked Kyle whether or not he felt he was doing a good job. Even though his boss was pleased and profits were up significantly from the previous year, he did not feel that he was doing a good job. In fact, he even worried about being fired. He also worried about losing his family whom he loved deeply. He knew he could not continue to work at his current pace but feared the wrath of his boss.

I suggested he write his minimum standards for an acceptable performance. At first he was concerned that I wanted him to be satisfied with a mediocre performance. I emphasized the importance of having lofty goals and sincerely striving to obtain them. I also explained that measuring his performance against an ideal standard was self-defeating. Once he understood, he made a thorough and detailed list of what he was willing and able to do for his company. One of the items was work fifty hours a week--with exceptions only on rare occasions.

Although he sincerely believed he might be fired after presenting his standards, for the sake of his family and his health he set up an appointment with his boss. First, he assured the president he was fully committed to the mission and goals of the company. Then he presented his boss with the list of his standards, asking if performance at such a level would be acceptable. He decided not to use the word "minimum" because he thought it might be misunderstood to mean mediocre.

As generally happens, the boss reviewed the list of standards, finding them more than satisfactory. Another interesting thing happened. By carefully analyzing the needs of the company and his own talents, Bill prioritized and organized his efforts in a way that he could be more productive in less time. Not only did Kyle end up with more time for himself and his family, he made a more significant contribution to his company .

Reminder: If this central principle does not apply to your particular concern, go to another central principle OR go directly to the section on the problem you wish to solve: Communication Difficulties, Depression, Unsatisfactory Intimacy, or Anxiety Attacks)