Are you a 'make it perfect' or a 'it's good enough' decision maker?

Introduction to Maximisers: 'Make it perfect' and Satisficers: 'It's good enough' decision-making theory.

Photo by Sam Lion on Pexels

Decision-making has remained a crucial aspect of our human civilisation, ranging from the more complex and vital decisions such as the right career or degree to pursue, city to live in, et cetera, down to the simpler ones like outfits to wear, restaurants to visit, recent tech reviews, and the right vendors to purchase them from.

There are traces of various ways past civilisations have attempted better decision-making. Although not fact-checked, I read that the ancient Persians had a unique decision-making tradition. They would discuss essential matters while drunk and then re-evaluate the consensus when sober. If the decision still seemed sound, they would act on it. Conversely, decisions made while sober were reconsidered when drunk.

From an early age, the question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" becomes common. This question is asked repeatedly from the moment you begin to talk. As a child, you are encouraged to make choices about your school subjects, friendships, extracurricular activities, and higher education goals, all aiming to shape your future career.

As we grow older, we begin to realise that our decisions are less about choosing what to do or determining what is right or wrong and more about defining who we are. These decisions become more significant with age as we must decide where to live, which political party to support, and what partners to navigate life with, whether in marriage, business, or other aspects of life.

All kinds of decisions, big and small, bombard us throughout our daily lives. Some warrant more time and energy for deliberation than others. Understanding the various ways people make decisions has provided clarity. Individuals generally fall into one of two categories: 'maximisers,' who aim to get the most out of their choices, and 'satisficers,' who adopt a 'this is good enough' mindset.

Gaining insight into which decision-making approach you are using could help improve your choices. Each approach has its own benefits and downsides, including how it affects your happiness. Fortunately, there are methods to 'hack' your decision-making process, enabling you to align the appropriate strategy with the significance of the decision.

Maximisers: 'Make it perfect'

Like myself, if you fall under this category, it means you likely spend time carefully assessing and weighing your options before making a decision. According to writer Bryan Lufkin, "On paper, these decision-makers category may look like the most logical or efficient since they've spent so much time deliberating possibilities and potential results."

However, the downside is that these individuals have trouble making decisions because they constantly strive to get it perfectly right. So, by "wanting to maximise the outcome, they lose a lot of time in the process", says Stephanie Preston, professor of psychology at the University of Michigan.

Furthermore, "The process of deliberating and choosing one option after thoroughly considering others is not only time-consuming but also linked to post-decision regret and counterfactual thinking", as Sally Maitlis, professor of organisational behaviour and leadership at Oxford University's Saïd Business School puts it. Introducing thoughts like 'How would it have been to have chosen the other option?" in the minds of maximisers after making a decision.

In fact, a series of studies showed that maximisers were more likely to be depressed, overly perfectionistic and prone to regret or self-blame.

Satisficers: 'It's good enough'

'Satisficers' is a combination of the words 'satisfy' and 'suffice.' It was first coined in the 1950s by American psychologist Herbert Simon. On this spectrum, people in this decision-making category take a more straightforward approach, making decisions that meet their criteria for adequacy without exhaustive comparison. This method often results in quicker decisions and less post-decision regret and counterfactual thinking.

Thus, a satisficer is someone who acknowledges there are constraints and that you can't solve all of them. In addition, you definitely can't solve all of them quickly if you choose to. "So, 'good enough' is the characteristic of decision-making for satisficers," says Professor Preston.

For example, when buying a car, a satisficer might choose the first model that fits their budget and has the essential features they need rather than spending weeks test-driving and comparing multiple models. Similarly, when choosing a university or city to live in, a satisficer might pick one that friends and family attend or live in rather than spending days/months considering every option.

The downside is that while satisficers make decisions swiftly, these choices might not always result in the 'best' outcome or offer the highest maximum return. A 2006 study, for example, showed that recent university graduates with high maximising tendencies found jobs that paid starting salaries that were 20% higher than those of their satisficing peers. (Nevertheless, maximisers reported being less satisfied with those jobs.)

Balance is the key!

Much like extroversion and introversion, most people fall somewhere between these two decision-making types. This balance is beneficial, as the optimal approach to making decisions often involves blending both maximiser and satisficer tendencies.

"As a general rule, maximisers do better but feel worse," says Barry Schwartz, professor emeritus of psychology at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, who's researched and written extensively about maximisers and satisficers.

Therefore, Bryan Lufkin suggested the question is whether the objective result or the subjective result is more important to you.

"In theory, the ideal approach is to satisfice most decisions and only maximise when the stakes are high," says Preston. This means thoroughly evaluating options and making careful decisions for life-altering choices. "But after making a careful choice, you need to quickly revert to satisficing to avoid dissatisfaction, no matter how good the decision."

Sally agrees. "For significant decisions, such as choosing where to live or choosing a job, leaning towards maximising is better," she says. "For less important decisions, like selecting a breakfast cereal or a coffee spot, satisficing works well."

Schwartz advises, "The best general approach is to avoid impulsive decisions and the urge to consider every option. Aristotle's 'golden mean' suggests the right balance of deliberation. Impulsive people should deliberate more, and overly deliberative people should be less so. This balance, however, is easier said than done."

In conclusion, as Bryan Lufkin advised, "If you find yourself maximising too much, try eliminating some of the options. If you're satisficing too much, spend more time meditating on the decision and the pros and cons of each possible outcome."

---

Many thanks for reading my perspective and giving feedback.

My fervent wish is for the personal growth of everyone and the success of all young professionals who put their hearts and souls into finding their purpose in life.

If you find this content insightful and would like to join my community of wonderful people, which I am trying to build, please subscribe and connect with me.

Copyright © Ekene Moses, 2024. All Rights Reserved.