Moving the Mental Goalposts: Why Aiming for the “Best” Isn’t Always The Best Strategy
When we make our New Year’s resolutions or set ourselves a list of personal goals, we often think in terms of maximums; we phrase them along the lines of “I want to be as fit as I can be,” “I want to make as much money as possible,” or “I want to give as much back to charity as I can.” Our governments often do the same; for example, in many countries, the rhetoric surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic has been to reduce the transmission and hospitalizations from the virus as much as possible before, for example, opening up shops or allowing mass gatherings.
These types of goals are known as “maximizing” goals. By that, we mean that they don’t have a particular end target; the aim is simply to become the best, or do as much, as we possibly can. Cognitively, it requires constant exploration and analysis to ensure the “best” option hasn’t been overlooked, and that we are always optimizing our decisions and actions to achieve this target.
One issue that arises from maximizing goals is that they are, by their very nature, extremely difficult to reach and complete. At what point can we say that we are the “fittest” we can be? What does that even mean? Surely we can always be a little bit more fit? Similarly, at what point have we done enough to stem the transmission of COVID-19 before opening up hairdressers?
Without a clear, reality-oriented goalpost, but rather a vague determination to improve or maximize our ability in an area, we are not only setting ourselves up for disappointment, but we are also potentially wasting time and energy. Without properly interrogating whether or not a particular ambition needs to be maximized or not, we may spend needless resources becoming the best at something that we would be happy simply being pretty good at.
In light of this, behavioral economics suggests that there is a different type of goal that we can, and should, be routinely setting for ourselves: satisficing goals. Satisficing goals are those where we seek an option or goal that is “good enough.” It is particularly useful when we have incomplete information, when we’re dealing with systems that involve high levels of uncertainty, or when we do not have the resources to invest in searching for all potential alternatives in aid of maximizing.
To help understand the difference between a maximizing and satisficing goal, let us take the example of fitness.
Maximizing: I want to be as fit as I can be.
Satisficing: I want to be fit enough to run a 5k without stopping.
For another example, this time related to writing:
Maximizing: I want to write more this year.
Satisficing: I want to write an article every month this year.
References
- Simon, H.A., A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1955. 69(1): p. 99-118.
- Schwartz, B., et al., Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2002. 83(5): p. 1178-97.
- Peng, S., Maximizing and Satisficing in Decision-Making Dyads. 2013.
- Sparks, E.A., J. Ehrlinger, and R.P. Eibach, Failing to commit: Maximizers avoid commitment in a way that contributes to reduced satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 2012. 52(1): p. 72-77.
- Misuraca, R. and B. Fasolo, Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: Disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”. Personality and Individual Differences, 2018. 121: p. 152-160.
- Andreatta, P.B., et al., Short-term outcomes and long-term impact of a programme in medical education for medical students. Medical Education, 2009. 43(3): p. 260-267.
- Hey, J.D., Y. Permana, and N. Rochanahastin, When and how to satisfice: an experimental investigation. Theory and Decision, 2017. 83(3): p. 337-353.
About the Author
Akhil Bansal
Akhil Bansal is a junior doctor and researcher who sits on the board of several health non-for profits. He is a staff writer at The Decision Lab, and is particularly interested in how behavioural economics insights can be applied to improve health and healthcare. He has a special interest in low-cost healthcare innovations, and the role organisational development plays in driving growth and longevity. An aspiring ceramicist, Akhil is often found sitting at a potter’s wheel on the weekends. Akhil graduated from the University of Sydney with a Bachelor of Science and Doctor of Medicine.
About us
We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy
Our insights are leveraged by the most ambitious organizations
“
I was blown away with their application and translation of behavioral science into practice. They took a very complex ecosystem and created a series of interventions using an innovative mix of the latest research and creative client co-creation. I was so impressed at the final product they created, which was hugely comprehensive despite the large scope of the client being of the world's most far-reaching and best known consumer brands. I'm excited to see what we can create together in the future.
Heather McKee
BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST
GLOBAL COFFEEHOUSE CHAIN PROJECT
OUR CLIENT SUCCESS
$0M
Annual Revenue Increase
By launching a behavioral science practice at the core of the organization, we helped one of the largest insurers in North America realize $30M increase in annual revenue.
0%
Increase in Monthly Users
By redesigning North America's first national digital platform for mental health, we achieved a 52% lift in monthly users and an 83% improvement on clinical assessment.
0%
Reduction In Design Time
By designing a new process and getting buy-in from the C-Suite team, we helped one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world reduce software design time by 75%.
0%
Reduction in Client Drop-Off
By implementing targeted nudges based on proactive interventions, we reduced drop-off rates for 450,000 clients belonging to USA's oldest debt consolidation organizations by 46%
