What are the five stages of the emotional cycle of change?

Uninformed optimism, informed pessimism, the valley of despair, informed optimism, and achievement. The model is generally credited to Don Kelley and Daryl Conner, who described it in 1979, and versions of it circulate widely today.

Why do most people quit at the third stage?

Because the low point coincides with a new idea appearing, and the new idea has no visible problems yet. You are comparing something you know intimately, including all of its flaws, with something you know almost nothing about.

How do I know if I should push through or actually quit?

Ask whether the difficulty is specific to this project or generic to doing anything seriously. Generic difficulty follows you to the next thing. A genuine change of direction usually survives being made from a good week rather than a bad one.

Does this apply outside of business?

Yes. The curve shows up in creative projects, sport, learning an instrument, activism, and relationships. Anything with a gap between deciding to do it and being any good at it produces the same shape.

Does the cycle get easier the second time?

The stages do not disappear but they lose their power to surprise you. Once you have been through it, the low point reads as a known phase rather than as evidence you picked wrong, and that alone changes what you do next.

The five stages of building anything, and why most people quit at stage three

Ziyaan Virji · February 15, 2025

I heard a version of this on a podcast, from Alex Hormozi talking to Steven Bartlett, and had the uncomfortable experience of hearing my own last few years described as a predictable sequence.

The model itself is older than either of them. It is usually called the emotional cycle of change, and it is generally credited to Don Kelley and Daryl Conner, who set it out in 1979. It gets attributed to a lot of people now, which is what happens to a good framework. Worth knowing where it came from.

It applies to anyone building something from nothing. A business, a nonprofit, a creative practice, a sport, a campaign. Anywhere there is a gap between deciding to do something and being any good at it.

I have run this loop more times than I would like to count.

Stage one: uninformed optimism

This is the beginning, and it feels wonderful.

You have found the idea. It is obviously good. You can see the whole thing already, and the parts you cannot see do not worry you because you have not encountered them yet. You buy the domain. You tell people. You start.

The optimism is real and it is also uninformed, which is the whole point of the name. You are enthusiastic in direct proportion to how little you know.

Nothing wrong with this stage. It is what gets anything started, and if you could see the full picture in advance you would probably never begin.

Stage two: informed pessimism

Then you learn things.

There are problems you did not anticipate. There are more people doing this than you realised, several of them better. There are skills the work requires that you do not currently have, and acquiring them is boring.

The idea has not got worse. Your information has got better, and better information about anything real is always less flattering than the version in your head.

This is where doubt starts, and where people begin glancing around.

Stage three: the valley of despair

This is where almost everyone stops.

You are frustrated and tired. Progress has slowed or reversed. The thing you were excited about now mostly looks like a list of unresolved problems, because you know every one of its flaws in detail.

And this is exactly when a new idea appears. A different project. A better opportunity. Something cleaner.

Here is the trap, stated as precisely as I can. You are comparing a thing you know completely, including every flaw, against a thing you know almost nothing about. That comparison is rigged and it will always come out the same way. The new idea does not have fewer problems. It has problems you have not met.

So you switch. And the cycle restarts, and eleven months later you are standing in the same valley wearing a different hat.

I did this for years and had a good explanation for it every time.

Stage four: informed optimism

If you stay, something changes.

You stop scanning for an exit and start working the problem in front of you. You develop a realistic sense of what the work involves. You accept that every path has a version of this stage, which means switching does not avoid it, it only resets it.

The optimism here is different from stage one. It is smaller, more specific, and it is based on evidence rather than imagination. It is also much more durable.

Stage five: achievement

Things start working. You get good at the thing. What you built exists rather than being another abandoned folder.

The more valuable part is what you now know. When you set the next goal, you will not fool yourself that it will be easy. You will expect the excitement, then the harder reality, then the low point, then the grind, then the result. Knowing the shape means the low point stops functioning as evidence that you chose wrong.

That is the actual prize. Not the outcome, the ability to run the cycle again on purpose.

Where are you

Take a second and locate yourself honestly.

Just started and excited. Realising it is harder than it looked. Stuck, frustrated, and quietly browsing for something else. Grinding but seeing the path. Or through it.

If you are in the third one, the only advice worth giving is this: every path comes with a version of this. Every project, every career, every craft. The choice is not between a hard one and an easy one, it is about which hard thing you are willing to stay with.

So pick your difficulty. Not the thing that seems easiest, the thing whose specific problems you are prepared to live with for a long time.

If the pattern of leaving at stage three sounds familiar as a general habit rather than a one-off, that is the subject of are you an amateur or a pro. If you are stuck at the beginning rather than the middle, start with how to actually take the first step.

Whatever you are working on right now, stay in it a while longer than feels reasonable.

Frequently asked questions

What are the five stages of the emotional cycle of change?: Uninformed optimism, informed pessimism, the valley of despair, informed optimism, and achievement. The model is generally credited to Don Kelley and Daryl Conner, who described it in 1979, and versions of it circulate widely today.
Why do most people quit at the third stage?: Because the low point coincides with a new idea appearing, and the new idea has no visible problems yet. You are comparing something you know intimately, including all of its flaws, with something you know almost nothing about.
How do I know if I should push through or actually quit?: Ask whether the difficulty is specific to this project or generic to doing anything seriously. Generic difficulty follows you to the next thing. A genuine change of direction usually survives being made from a good week rather than a bad one.
Does this apply outside of business?: Yes. The curve shows up in creative projects, sport, learning an instrument, activism, and relationships. Anything with a gap between deciding to do it and being any good at it produces the same shape.
Does the cycle get easier the second time?: The stages do not disappear but they lose their power to surprise you. Once you have been through it, the low point reads as a known phase rather than as evidence you picked wrong, and that alone changes what you do next.