Good decisions begin with a threshold, not an impossible optimum
“When alternatives are examined sequentially, we may regard the first satisfactory alternative that is evaluated as such as the one actually selected.”
Source & reference
At a glance
- The more important a decision feels, the more we assume that we must compare every alternative and identify the best answer. In reality, information, time, and attention are limited, and alternatives themselves usually appear one by one.
- Herbert Simon argued that people generally seek an option that meets a defined standard rather than a perfectly optimal solution. He called this satisficing.
- The point is not to settle carelessly. It is to decide in advance what would be sufficient and to know when the cost of further search no longer justifies delaying action.
Today’s reflection
In his 1955 paper “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice,” Simon replaced models that assume complete information and unlimited calculation with an account of how people actually search through alternatives under constraints and choose one they judge satisfactory. His work on bounded rationality became foundational for understanding decision-making in organizations, and he received the 1978 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for this research. Today’s English sentence is a short direct quotation from page 110 of the paper; the Korean is a natural translation.
- The cost of search is part of the cost of a decision. Time, attention, and missed opportunities spent seeking a better option must be counted alongside the quality of the result.
- Set the threshold before examining the options. If the standard changes after an attractive option appears, a striking feature or personal preference can masquerade as a necessary condition.
- The meaning of good enough should vary with stakes and reversibility. Test reversible choices quickly; subject hard-to-reverse choices to a higher threshold and independent scrutiny.
Endless comparison can look like prudence while producing delay, opportunity cost, and avoidance of responsibility. Yet choosing the first option without a standard is not satisficing; it is haste. Responsible satisficing requires minimum criteria set in advance, risks that must not be crossed, and signals that call for more search. Irreversible decisions involving safety or reputation need a higher threshold and broader review, while reversible decisions can often be tested through a small action that creates new evidence.
Practice for today
Choose one decision you have been postponing and write a four-line sufficiency review.
- what result must this decision produce?
- what three minimum criteria or constraints must an option satisfy?
- which risk or unknown would require further search?
- which current option meets the threshold, and what is the smallest reversible action you can begin today?
Set a date to review the result.
Until then, do not keep delaying a threshold-meeting decision merely because another option might exist.
Question for today
Am I postponing a decision because a better option might exist, or am I defining the standard I need and choosing a good-enough first action?
Readers’ Reflections
What did this bring to mind? A few lines are enough.
Share your reflection
Reflections shared
0No reflections have been published yet. Be the first to share one.