Supercoach - Michael Neill [32]
Do you want to?
If you want to, do; if you don’t want to, don’t.
Will this always lead to making the best possible decisions?
No. Nor is it designed to.
In 1957, Nobel Prize–winning political scientist Herbert A. Simon introduced the term satisfice—that is, to make a choice that is both satisfactory and sufficient to meet the needs of the situation without necessarily being the absolute best of all possible options. He contrasted “satisficing” as a decision-making strategy with “maximizing” (choosing the biggest option) and “optimizing” (choosing the best possible option).
To better understand the distinction between these three strategies, consider these two examples:
1. Selling a House
— Maximizing: My goal with this strategy is to get the highest possible price. If I’m maximizing, I’ll probably set my price high, then play potential buyers off one another in order to get their bids up. The person with the highest bid will win.
— Optimizing: My goal with this strategy is to get the best possible deal. If I’m optimizing, I’ll probably first make a list of critical factors (price, timing, ease of dealing with the buyer, and so on), weighting each factor for its relative importance. I’ll then evaluate each offer against the various criteria, seeking the optimal combination of factors.
— Satisficing: My goal with this strategy is simply to get a good enough deal. If I’m satisficing, I’ll probably set a price and time frame for the deal at which I’ll be happy and accept the first offer that meets those criteria. Even if I get a “better” offer later, I’ll most likely stick with the original buyer as long as that person continues to meet my needs.
2. Grocery Shopping
— Maximizing: My goal is simple—where can I get the most groceries for the least money? I may change where I shop from week to week based on who’s offering specials on the items I most want to buy.
— Optimizing: My goal here is a bit more complex, as I might introduce factors other than price into the decision. Which stores have the healthiest or best-tasting food? Which are the most convenient for me to shop at? Of those stores, I’ll make my decision about where to shop, seeking to get the best possible combination of health, taste, price, and convenience.
— Satisficing: Once again, my goal is simple—a “good enough” place to shop. If I’m satisficing, I’ll get my groceries each week at the most convenient store I can afford to shop in.
Although there may be situations in life where investing the extra time in maximizing or optimizing would be worthwhile, the vast majority of decisions we make each day can benefit from the “satisficing” approach.
Satisficing
Deliberately satisfice (that is, settle for “good enough”) at least three times this week as a way of reducing stress and simplifying your life.
Notice how easy or difficult you find it to let go of the “quest for the best.”
Wants, Whims, Fantasies, and Shoulds
The problem most people have when they first switch over to the simplicity of “Do I want to?” as a primary decision-making tool is in discerning between four kinds of apparent desires, which I call wants, whims, fantasies, and shoulds. Let’s take a closer look at each of these in reverse order:
1. Shoulds
“. . . musterbation is evil and pernicious. . . . If you
didn’t musterbate, then you wouldn’t awfulize, terribilize,
catastrophize, say ‘I can’t stand it,’ and put yourself down.
If you only stuck with, ‘I’d like very much to do well, but I
never have to,’ you wouldn’t then disturb yourself.”
— Albert Ellis
Based on my very unofficial research over the past 20 years of working with people, the number one question people attempt to use to navigate their way through life is this:
What would be the right/best/smartest
thing to do in this situation?
The problem with this approach is that (a) there’s no way of knowing the “right” answer until afterward, and (b) most of us hate being told what to do, even if we’re the ones doing the telling.
Here are some key words and