Welcome to the deep dive. Our mission, as always,
is to dive into your information stack, could
be research, internal docs, anything really,
and pull out that key signal from all the noise
so you can get up to speed fast. Today, we're
tackling something I think pretty much everyone
bumps into, whether you're leading a project,
managing a team, maybe even in your own personal
projects. We're calling it the paradox of moving
goals. You know the feeling. You set a target.
You allocate resources. People get to work. And
just as you're nearing the finish line. Boom,
the goal post shift. Suddenly, what you thought
was the goal. Well, that's not quite it anymore.
Yeah, it's like organizational whiplash, right?
Working hard towards point B. You finally get
there, and the person who set the goal, maybe
your client, a manager, whoever says, oh. Uh,
that's actually not really what we need now.
We need this other thing instead. The material
we're digging into today, it's actually centered
around educational technology, how teachers adopt
new tools. But honestly, the problem it highlights,
it applies everywhere. Leadership, design, resource
allocation, it's universal. The real challenge
for anyone in CHART is figuring out why the requirements
keep ratcheting up. Is it, you know, genuine
discovery? Like, oh, we learned something, now
we need this. Or is it... something else, maybe
avoidance. That difference, genuine need versus,
let's say, excuse -making, that's huge. Because
every time that goal shifts, money shifts, time
shifts, effort shifts, limited resources are
always in play. Okay. Okay. So let's get concrete.
The source material gives us two really good
contrasting case studies. Let's start with the
first one, which we're calling the geometry teacher.
She was supposedly keen on using tech in her
classroom. So the school or the district stepped
up. They gave her some initial resources, repurposed
laptops, okay, maybe not brand new but functional,
enough for students to work in pairs, and software
licenses. Older versions, but they worked. The
idea was just get started. Right. get your feet
wet. But the goal posts, they started moving
almost instantly. She apparently took one look
and said, nope, not good enough. First big shift,
needed enough computers so every single student
had one, no sharing, and needed the latest software,
not the older stuff. And well, the organization
actually managed to find the budget. They met
that demand. OK, so goal achieved, right? Individual
workstations, new software, done. Not quite,
because then the next request came pretty quickly.
Now she decided they actually needed Chromebooks.
Why? Not because the laptops weren't working
for her lessons, but because, well, some neighboring
schools were using Chromebooks for a specific
web app. Ah. So the goal shifted based on what
others were doing, not necessarily a teaching
need she discovered herself. Seems like it. And
OK, so they get her the Chromebooks, replacing
the perfectly good new laptops they just bought,
mind you. And then came the final move. She decided
she really couldn't teach effectively with technology
at all, unless... Unless she had a high -end
smart board installed. Wow. Okay. That sounds
exhausting from a resource perspective You go
from shared old laptops to new individual laptops
to Chromebooks and now a smart board That's a
lot of churn and a lot of money. It looks like
somebody just can't be satisfied Exactly. It
looks like scope creep on overdrive. But here's
where the analysis in this source gets really
interesting. It focuses on a crucial observation
about her behavior. The key finding was this.
She decided each next level of technology was
essential after only, and this is critical, a
single attempt at using the previous one. Sometimes
maybe not even a real attempt. It wasn't like
she used the laptops for weeks and found a flaw.
Hmm. Okay. Just one try. That is significant.
But couldn't you argue maybe she was just perceptive?
Maybe she could see immediately that the older
tech wouldn't work for her ultimate vision? Isn't
that efficient? in a way. That's a fair challenge.
And that's why it's a paradox, right? On the
surface, it could look like foresight. But the
source material really pushes back on that idea
because of one other really vital piece of evidence.
Throughout this whole cycle, new laptops, new
software, Chromebooks, demanding a smart board,
she made basically zero changes to her actual
teaching methods. She was teaching geometry the
same way she always had. The tech wasn't being
integrated. It was just there. Or rather, the
next piece of tech was always about to be there.
Ah, OK. So the teaching practice itself stayed
static despite the constantly changing hardware
requests. Exactly. And so the conclusion the
researchers drew was pretty sharp. It seems like
she was using the lack of the perfect technology
as an ongoing excuse, an excuse to avoid the
really hard work, which was changing how she
actually taught. The goal wasn't really integrate
tech effectively. It became get the next piece
of equipment. The requests were a distraction.
Delaying the real task, which was pedagogical
change, by focusing on acquiring stuff. That
definitely paints a clearer picture of avoidance.
Okay, that sets up the contrast really well.
Let's pivot now to the second case study, the
statistics teacher. This one, according to the
source, looks more like genuine discovery driving
the goal changes. Yeah, the difference is noticeable
right from the start. This teacher actively wanted
to use tech to, you know, make statistics more
relevant, more hands -on. She got the standard
issue Chromebooks in this case. And unlike the
first teacher, she didn't immediately critique
the hardware. She just jumped in, started using
them with her students right away, tried to make
it work. OK, so usage from day one. But the goals
did start moving here too, right? Yeah. So what
drove those changes? It was driven by actually
doing the work. She used the Chromebooks, used
the standard spreadsheet software they had, and
she hit a real wall, a functional gap. Turns
out, the basic spreadsheet app just couldn't
create some of the specific, more complex graphs
needed for the level of statistical analysis
she wanted her students to do. The tool itself
was limiting the learning. OK, so a genuine limitation
discovered through practice. Did she immediately
ask for, like, a super expensive new system?
No, that's the interesting part. First, she tried
to find a workaround. She found an add -on for
the spreadsheet program that was supposed to
help with graphing. And importantly, the source
notes, she really struggled with this add -on,
used it over several lessons, found the interface
clunky, difficult for students, didn't really
match how professional stat software works. It
wasn't a quick nope. It was a sustained effort
that revealed the tool's shortcomings. Right,
so you see the effort. You see the struggle.
She invested time, found the limitations weren't
just superficial. Then she defined the next need.
Exactly. So then she requested propel statistical
software, more powerful industry standard stuff.
The school actually bought it. But that created
a new problem. The plot thickens. What now? This
new software needed more computing power. It
had to be installed on specific PCs and not run
on the Chromebooks. And those PCs were in a dedicated
computer lab, one usually booked solid by graphic
design and multimedia classes. Oh, classic resource
bottleneck. Yeah. The tech exists, but access
is the issue. Precisely. So the goal had moved
from basic tools to specialized software, which
was met. But then the problem shifted to logistics.
Scheduling her classes into that lab was a nightmare.
Inconsistent, difficult. It was hindering the
very thing the software was meant to enable.
OK, I see the chain reaction. So her final goal
shift, the last moving of the goal post, wasn't
really about the text capability anymore. It
was about access and workflow. She requested
dedicated laptops just for her stat students
with that specific software pre -installed, laptops
they could use in her classroom, eliminating
the whole scheduling fiasco. OK, let's put these
side by side then. Because if you're, say, the
principal or the IT director just looking at
the request, on paper. Yeah. Both teachers look
kind of similar, don't they? Both kept asking
for more, more expensive stuff. Both changed
the requirements multiple times. New hardware,
new software. So as the person holding the purse
strings, dealing with limited budgets, how do
you tell the difference? How do you know who
to support? Are you backing a real innovator
hitting real limits, or are you just funding
someone who's never going to be satisfied, who's
maybe just avoiding the real work? That's the
core dilemma. It absolutely is. And this is where
the source material offers, I think, its most
practical and powerful insight. It says this
whole paradox, this confusion, it actually gets
a lot easier to resolve if you apply one simple
filter. Forget just looking at the requests.
Look at the actions. OK. The key diagnostic question
isn't, what shiny new thing do they want next?
It's, what are they doing with what they have
right now? Or maybe even, what effort are they
putting in to make the current system work? So
observe the usage. The effort. But hang on. Couldn't
that be tricky? What if someone is using the
tech, but maybe quietly struggling? Or their
manager just doesn't see the effort? How do you
make sure observing usage is fair and accurate?
That's a great point. It's not just about seeing
someone clicking buttons. It's about looking
for signs of genuine engagement and adaptation.
Think about the statistics teacher. Her usage
wasn't just opening the software. It was wrestling
with the add -on over multiple lessons. It was
the effort of trying to schedule that damn computer
lab. Her requests came after documented struggles
with real constraints, the graphing limits, the
scheduling conflicts. Okay, so the struggle itself
is the data. Yes. Her moving goal wasn't just,
I want something newer, it was effectively, I've
pushed this system to its limit, here's the proof,
and here's the specific problem I need solved
next to get past this roadblock I actually hit.
Hmm. Compare that to the geometry teacher. Where
was the struggle with the existing tools? Where
was the adaptation of her teaching? The effort
seemed focused outward on requesting the next
thing, not inward, on changing her own practice
with what she had. That distinction feels really
important. The goal only moves legitimately when
it's pushed by someone actively hitting the ceiling
of the current setup. You haven't maxed out what
you've got. Then asking for the next big thing
might just be, well, delaying the hard part.
Exactly. Delaying the workflow changes, the process
improvements, the skill development that might
actually be needed. So the advice for leaders,
for managers, for anyone allocating resources
is maybe counterintuitive. Don't just reward
the person who claims they'll hit the target
with the next new tool. Instead, you should actively
support the person or the team who is visibly
struggling with the current system. The ones
who are trying to make it work, adapting, pushing
its boundaries, and then identifying the specific
next step based on that real -world friction.
That's precisely it. Their struggle is your validation.
They aren't asking for something new because
the old thing is slightly inconvenient or not
the latest model. They're asking because they
have demonstrated. through effort exactly where
and why the current system is failing them for
the task at hand. That's the signal in the noise.
It kind of reframes how we think about resource
allocation. It's less about funding the promise
of future perfection and more about investing
in the people who are demonstrating productive
struggle now. rewarding the effort to maximize
the current imperfect reality. And it touches
on the psychology too, doesn't it? Why is it
often easier to ask for a new tool like that
smart board than it is to fundamentally change
how you do your work, like redesigning lesson
plans? I suppose asking for a tool puts the onus
on management, on the budget. Right. It shifts
the effort and the risk, partly. Changing your
own deep -seated practices, that requires personal
effort, vulnerability, maybe admitting something
wasn't working. It feels riskier personally,
even if buying new tech is riskier financially
for the organization. It's that lure of the perfect
technology, the idea that some external thing,
some silver bullet, will solve the core problem
without requiring us to change our own behavior.
The perfect tool becomes the perfect excuse.
So for everyone listening, Whether you're managing
a big project, leading a small team, or even
just trying to get your own goals met, this framework
seems incredibly useful. If your team keeps asking
for the next big platform, the fancy new software,
but you look around and see the current system
isn't really being pushed to its limits, you
might need to ask, Are we funding progress or
are we funding a very sophisticated delay tactic?
It's less about the goal on paper and way more
about the visible effort going into making today's
solution work. Absolutely. The core takeaway
is really that simple. The difference between
avoidance and adaptation isn't in the request
itself. It's in the effort and the usage that
precedes the request. Support the struggle because
that's where the real needs are revealed. Which
brings us to a final thought for you to consider.
If this research holds true, If real progress
and understanding what's truly needed next only
comes from grappling with imperfect tools, what
does that say about our constant quest for perfection
before we start? Right. If you're waiting for
the absolutely perfect software, the ideal team
structure, the perfect market conditions, the
perfect moment to launch, could it be that you're
actually just building a really elegant mechanism
for delay? So, maybe the question to ask yourself
is, what small, maybe even insufficient tool
or process could you start using today, right
now, imperfectly, just to force the discovery,
through doing, of what your real next requirement
actually is? Maybe. Don't wait for perfect. Start
with imperfect and see where the struggle leads
you.