A Noisy Theory of Asking for Help That Explains why Many Feel Underwhelmed With the Help They Receive

Employees often feel that the help they receive at work is inadequate. Whereas previous research explains this empirical finding by referencing stereotypes or poor communication, we suggest an alternative that does not rely on biased agents: disappointment with received help may arise due to self-selection and regression to the mean. Before asking for help, employees assess whether their co-workers have the time and ability to respond. Consistent with regression to the mean, extreme beliefs are often followed by less extreme outcomes. However, employees with inflated beliefs are more likely to ask for help than employees with low or modest beliefs. Therefore, the subset of employees who act will have overly optimistic expectations, expectations that are unlikely to be met once co-workers respond. Apart from challenging conventional wisdom, this article also integrates chance and self-selection perspectives into the ongoing dialogue of help-seeking. Implications for future research, theory, and practice are discussed. This article presents a theory explaining the following empirical regularity: employees often feel let down with the help they receive at work. Prior research explains this effect by referencing errors in communication or cognition. We propose a simple, alternative mechanism, such that cognitive biases or communication mishaps need not be present for the pattern to emerge. Suppose employees ask for help based on a noisy signal of colleague potential—that is, a perception of whether co-workers have the motivation and ability to resolve the issue. Employees who believe potential is high will be more likely to ask for help than employees who believe potential is low. Due to regression to the mean, extreme beliefs will likely be followed by less extreme received help (in either direction). But not every employee asks for help. Only those with sufficiently high beliefs send a request—and it is those employees who have a greater chance of holding inflated assessments. Among those who ask, then, received help will appear underwhelming. Apart from challenging conventional wisdom, this article also integrates chance and self-selection perspectives into the ongoing dialogue of help-seeking. Implications for future research, theory, and practice are discussed.