Questions for you:
- When making decisions, do you look for “good enough” and move on, or endlessly search for the perfect option, wondering if something better exists?
- Looking at decision satisfaction, are you content once reasonable criteria are met, or do you feel a nagging doubt that more research might reveal superior alternatives?
- In environments with incomplete information and randomness (hiring, strategy, partnerships), do you recognise that seeking “the best” becomes a trap because optimal choice is unknowable?
- After making decisions, do you move forward confidently, or waste cognitive energy second-guessing whether you maximised the outcome?
Organisational applications:
Set thresholds, not perfection targets: Satisficers define criteria upfront, decide when met, move on. Optimisers stuck on decision treadmill – always looking for slightly better option, never landing, always wondering if they could have done better. It’s a psychological endless scroll. In hiring, define what “good enough” looks like and hire the first candidate who meets the criteria, rather than interviewing endlessly in search of marginal improvements. In vendor selection: set minimum requirements, choose the first adequate option. Searching for the perfect hire or vendor wastes time and money pursuing unknowable “best.”
Recognise when randomness makes optimising futile: Most decision environments are partly random – jobs, partners, strategies, markets. You don’t know what else is out there, working with incomplete information. More randomness involved, more optimising becomes a trap because “best” is unknowable, might not even exist. Satisficers have edge – set threshold, navigate uncertainty, avoid paralysis by illusion of perfect choice. They work with randomness, not try to beat it. Apply to innovation, market entry, partnership selection – any domain where future outcomes depend heavily on unpredictable factors.
Optimisers pay opportunity cost: Time spent seeking marginal improvements has cost – delayed launches, missed partnerships, exhausted teams, paralysed execution. Satisficing enables action, whilst optimising creates analysis paralysis. Particularly harmful in fast-moving environments where first-mover advantage matters or where information gathering has diminishing returns. Build organisational cultures that value decisive action on “good enough” over endless refinement seeking the “best,” which may not exist or become irrelevant before it is achieved.
Research shows satisficers are happier: Optimisers might chase the best, but satisficers tend to feel more content. Optimisers never quite land, always second-guessing. This affects team morale, decision-making speed, and organisational agility. Train teams to satisfice strategically: establish decision criteria explicitly, commit when the criteria are met, and move on without regret. Reserve optimising for genuinely critical decisions with low randomness, sufficient time, and clear metrics. For most decisions, satisficing produces adequate outcomes more quickly and at lower psychological cost.
Further reading
Satisficing, optimising, and decision-making
The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz – explores why optimisers (maximisers) are less happy than satisficers despite seeking best outcomes, showing how excessive choice and optimising behaviour reduce satisfaction.
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman – includes discussion of satisficing versus optimising strategies, showing when each approach produces better outcomes under uncertainty.
Algorithms to Live By by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths – computer science approach to decision-making including optimal stopping problems showing when satisficing mathematically superior to endless optimising.
Decision-making under uncertainty
Sources of Power by Gary Klein – naturalistic decision-making research showing experts satisfice rather than optimise under time pressure and uncertainty, using “recognition-primed decision” approach.
Blink by Malcolm Gladwell – explores rapid cognition and satisficing, showing thin-slicing often produces better decisions than exhaustive analysis when facing incomplete information.
The Art of Thinking Clearly by Rolf Dobelli – cognitive biases including those making optimisers dissatisfied despite seeking best outcomes, showing satisficing as antidote to decision paralysis.
Organisational decision-making and action bias
Simple Rules by Donald Sull and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt – strategic decision-making using simple criteria enabling satisficing rather than complex optimisation analysis paralysing action.
Good to Great by Jim Collins – includes “good is the enemy of great” but also shows successful companies make decisive moves on adequate information rather than waiting for perfect clarity.
The Lean Startup by Eric Ries – advocates “good enough” minimum viable products over perfected offerings, showing satisficing enables learning whilst optimising delays market feedback.
About the image
A beautiful display of shoes at a store in Barcelona that I spotted on a trip there back in 2016.
Photo montage and photo by Matt Ballantine, 2026, 2016
Random the Book 