“Show Me the Ugly Version” — Feedback Before the Work Is Polished

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.

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.