A Curious Animal, We Are

Curious has two meanings; we (humans) exemplify both: (1) We are inquisitive and eagerly chase after whims. (2) We are also, at times, peculiar—acting in ways that are difficult to understand, or unexpected. Our devotion to information represents some of each meaning: we dread being swamped by information yet can’t resist seeking more. 

That isn’t surprising (or unique to humans) given that uncertainty is ever-present and inevitable. Nor is it surprising that we devote so much attention to searching for ways to increase predictability. We routinely take steps to try things out, pondering possibilities all the time: “Let’s see,” “What if,” “I wonder what would…,” “I doubt it’ll be like that,” “We can give it a try”. In other words, prediction is built into our approaches to reducing uncertainty and achieving understanding.

We test the water, dip in a toe, check to see, put out feelers, and rarely realize how much we rely on such explorations.

While these efforts are commonplace and don’t qualify as “experiments” (in our conventional understanding of them) they share core characteristics of a Small Experiment Mindset: curiosity, seeking answers, and resisting overwhelm. Small experiments are intended to be manageable rather than comprehensive and useful rather than sophisticated. They inspire new questions and achievable next steps. Living in a world of inevitable uncertainty and craving to make it more predictable, we frequently resort to experimenting with possibilities.  Often “go small” makes more sense than what “go big or go home” advocates. 

Cautionary Notes 

Small experiments are created to answer a challenge, to learn something! If the outcome isn’t what we expected, the small experiment is not a failure; it provides useful information and ideas for a step forward. 

Failures, however, are possible! Minimizing them begins before doing the small experiment. That’s the time to anticipate hindsight. What will we be sorry we hadn’t considered ahead of time? What do we expect to learn? Does it matter?  Why might we decide to abandon the project midstream? Anticipating what we can learn is at the heart of designing a useful small experiment. 

Asking these kinds of questions is a good step, at the same time, chasing all the “what ifs” is a fast path to overwhelm! A small experiment (well, any experiment!) cannot answer everything or rule out all, or even most, of the alternative explanations for the outcome. First, consider whether the likely outcome is so obvious that it would be a poor use of time and other resources to proceed. Solution: “If it’s not worth doing, it’s not worth doing well!” Then, consider the likelihood of buy-in. If it’s unlikely any outcome will be put to any use, reconsider! There is no need for yet another well-intended effort that is instantly forgotten.

Greater Applicability 

Many “what ifs” relate to the applicability of the small experiment in related contexts. Would a similar organization have similar outcomes if they adopted our study’s findings? Would our findings apply to a different group within our organization?  

Since there are no definitive answers to such questions, the best approach is probably to accept such limitations. Sometimes, however, an additional question in the study design allows us to examine whether it makes a difference. For example, while how long someone has been with the organization may not be the central concern, it may be useful to understand if it plays an important role in the outcome of the small experiment. If it’s easy to collect that information, the results can be compared for relatively new vs. old timers. While this might be a useful strategy, additional questions can also undermine ‘manageability’, the primary tenet of small experiments. It’s one of those “less is more” moments, a time to resist temptations. 

There are many such moments, including these common temptations: asking too much from participants, burdening personnel tasked with doing the study, and collecting so much data that making sense of it is too challenging. Keeping the small experiment small has the dual benefits of gaining answers that will be used and inspiring the next small experiment to explore a newly emerging question. 

SEE-faring 

Where does the SEE framework fit with any of this? A simple answer is that SEE is integral to small experiments.  

Small experiments start from a curiosity, an exploration—not just for their own sake, but to address an existing challenge. Such meaningful engagement enhances understanding, enriches mental models, and often leads to greater clarity and effectiveness.

Alas, greater understanding can also raise more questions, and these temptations can tangle with our bandwidth and capability. The answer to that predicament is to keep the small experiment small; manageability is key! 

The ”answer” to the underlying challenge – the reason for the small experiment – is to consider ways the environment could be changed. How can the virtual or temporal environment be modified to increase a sense of competence? What tweak to the social situation might reduce employees’ feeling overwhelmed? Could addressing cultural workplace dynamics increase participation and feedback, so that teams can identify common goals? How can we get answers to such questions in a manageable way that provides useful and usable information?  

Manageability is key! Baby steps are much bigger and more impactful than no steps! Resisting temptations to take on too much or overcomplicate the experiment is a challenge, but doing so can make the difference between learning something as opposed to causing frustration and wasting goodwill. Even a small step forward is a gain; it may provide useful input.  

If all goes well, a Small Experiment Mindset will become standard operating procedure when future challenges arise.