On this page
A conversation about a new feature. Anna asks Jonas to show her a very early version.
— Show me the first version tomorrow. It can be ugly; I just need to see the direction.
— Tomorrow?
The next day, Jonas is still polishing the prototype.
— Do you have something to show me? — Anna asks.
— It’s not ready to show yet.
Anna wanted to see direction. Jonas believes you show work only when you can professionally stand behind it.
How does Empatyzer help choose when to share work in progress?
Empatyzer helps you see that the early version saves time, but may seem too crude. It also helps you see how to determine the right time for the consultation.
Features that can help:
- Comparison: Shows where you differ in areas such as timing of feedback, quality standard, and iteration, which helps you understand why a "Show me the ugly version" situation might mean different things to you.
- Tips: Offer guidance on how to talk to that particular person in a "Show me the ugly version" situation to keep the meaning of the message and reduce the risk of unnecessary defense or misunderstanding.
- Talk to Em about a specific person: Allows you to describe a "Show me the ugly version" situation to Em, take into account the profile of both parties and prepare a specific version of the conversation or message before reaching out.
What really happened
Anna asks for a very early version because she wants to check the direction before the team invests more time. To her, a rough draft is a thinking tool, not an evaluation of the person who made it. Jonas hears “show me your work” and connects showing with responsibility for quality. In his world, material that goes to the CEO should be something he can stand behind. So instead of showing the rough version, he spends three days improving it. Anna sees delayed learning; Jonas sees protection of a professional standard. Their profiles make both reactions plausible, but the core issue is not personality. It is the absence of a shared definition of whether the material is being shown to evaluate direction or to evaluate quality.
What the research says
In product development, a prototype does not have to be a miniature finished product. It can be a low-cost way to learn quickly and test assumptions before the cost of change increases (Barkan & Iansiti, 1993). Design research also shows how tangible, imperfect drafts can help teams “think through making,” notice errors earlier, and test new behavior more easily — prototyping as a learning tool (Coughlan, Fulton Suri, & Canales, 2007). This does not mean work should always be shown as early as possible. In some tasks, an extremely rough version can mislead or create risk. The point is that prototype quality should be judged against the question it is meant to answer, not against the standard of a finished product.
How to handle it
Give versions explicit labels. Anna can say: “Tomorrow I want a direction-check version. I am not evaluating execution, completeness, or aesthetics. I only want to see the A→B→C flow.” Jonas then knows which standard applies. A later version can be labeled “quality review.” The general rule is: do not merely say “show me something early”; say what you want to learn from that version and what you are explicitly not judging yet.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can surface in advance that Anna and Jonas have different definitions of a “professional first version.” Anna’s profile may indicate a stronger preference for quickly checking direction and risk; Jonas’s may show a stronger need for order, quality, and responsibility for what he presents. Before the assignment, Em can help Anna clarify: “Tomorrow I am not evaluating execution quality. I want only the direction and the two biggest risks.” Jonas then gets explicit permission to show unfinished work rather than having to guess whether an “ugly version” will damage his reputation. Micro-lessons teach leaders to distinguish a prototype for joint thinking from an output for quality evaluation, so early feedback actually speeds up learning instead of triggering hidden late-night polishing.
Sources
- Philip Barkan; Marco Iansiti (1993). Prototyping: a Tool for Rapid Learning in Product Development. Concurrent Engineering, 1(2), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X9300100205 10.1177/1063293X9300100205
- Peter Coughlan; Jane Fulton Suri; Katherine Canales (2007). Prototypes as (Design) Tools for Behavioral and Organizational Change: A Design-Based Approach to Help Organizations Change Work Behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(1), 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306297722 10.1177/0021886306297722
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.