Target Score Calibration
Match the quality target to the stakes before doing the work
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 98%
Target Score Calibration assigns a deliberate quality bar before work expands to fill the available time. Estimate the deliverable's stakes, longevity, and likely impact, then choose a score that represents good enough for that context. Grant describes aiming much higher for a book that absorbs years and may remain useful for a long time than for a short social post. The score is a stopping rule: once the work reaches the chosen standard, move on rather than polishing minor details indefinitely. The method redirects effort toward the projects where improvement matters most while preserving a baseline of competence everywhere else. It replaces a universal demand for perfection with disciplined judgment about return on effort.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01Excellence is not the same as flawlessness
- 02Different tasks deserve different quality bars
- 03Expected impact should guide effort
- 04Move on when the declared target is reached
How to run it
- 1
Define the deliverable
State exactly what is being produced and who it serves. A clear unit of work makes the quality decision concrete.
- 2
Judge the stakes
Consider reach, longevity, reversibility, and the cost of failure. Higher-impact and less-reversible work deserves a higher bar.
Pro tip Ask how long the output is likely to keep helping people.
Watch out Never lower a mandatory safety or compliance standard.
- 3
Estimate marginal return
Ask whether another hour would materially improve the outcome or merely polish it. Compare that return with other work competing for the same time.
- 4
Set the target score
Choose a realistic score and describe the observable qualities that would satisfy it. Set this before perfectionism takes over.
Pro tip Use a simple ten-point scale, as Grant does.
Watch out A score without acceptance criteria is easy to move upward later.
- 5
Stop at the bar
Review against the criteria and move on once they are met. Invest more only if new evidence changes the stakes.
Pro tip Record why the chosen score fits the deliverable.
Watch out Do not confuse discomfort about shipping with evidence that quality is inadequate.
In the wild
A researcher gives a durable book chapter a nine because it will represent years of work and may be read for a decade. The same researcher gives a short social post a six-and-a-half, checks it for clarity and avoidable errors, then publishes rather than spending the day polishing it.
→ More effort flows to the durable asset while the lower-stakes post still clears an explicit standard.
Common mistakes
Giving every task a nine
A universal high score recreates perfectionism and ignores opportunity cost.
Scoring only by personal reward
Grant reframes return in terms of useful impact for the time invested, not only immediate payoff.
Moving the bar after finishing
A stopping rule fails if anxiety can continually raise the target.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for people handling several deliverables with sharply different stakes, reach, or longevity.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal where safety, law, or a fixed professional standard requires a non-negotiable threshold.
From the transcript
“the first thing I do is I ask what is my target score here”
From the episode
Adam Grant: The Surprising New Research On Procrastination, Perfectionism & Happiness!