Moving the Mental Goalposts: Why Aiming for the “Best” Isn’t Always The Best Strategy

The controversy between maximizing and satisficing is deep-seated within economics. The debate was first introduced by Simon in 1955¹ and popularised by Schwartz in 2002,² and it can mean different things within different contexts. For this article, we will simply look at it within the context of goal-setting. 

Research has shown that those who satisfice enjoy their choices more. They also spend less time and create less stress for themselves while making choices. A landmark paper, published in 2002 by Barry Schwartz and colleagues,² investigated the decision-making of undergraduate university students. In the first stage of their study, they gave the students a questionnaire to determine firstly whether the students were had more “maximizing” or “satisficing” personalities, and secondly to evaluate their well-being across a number of domains: life satisfaction, happiness, optimism, and self-esteem. 

They found that those who maximized their choices and goals were less happy and had lower self-esteem and life satisfaction. Further, maximizers were more likely to experience depression and perfectionism. In further arms of the study, they found that maximizers were more likely to compare themselves to others socially, and they were more likely to experience regret.

These results have been echoed and extended over the last two decades. In 2013, Peng³ showed that within a professional context, teams that had satisficing tendencies had higher levels of morale, satisfaction, and better long-term outcomes compared to those with maximizing tendencies. In 2012, Sparks et al. showed that those who attempted to maximize their goals were not only less happy, but were also more reluctant to commit to their choices and goals.⁴ It is thought that these effects are amplified in digital environments, where the range of options and potential comparisons are multiplied.⁵

Omitted in the previous section of this discussion is an important metric: outcomes. Although the literature seems to fairly consistently show that satisficers show greater well-being and self-esteem at the individual level, the data comparing performance and outcomes paints a slightly different picture. 

Iyengar et al.⁶ studied university students in the fall of their final year in school. They administered a scale that measured their maximizing tendencies, and subsequently followed them over the course of the year as they searched for jobs. Students with maximizing tendencies secured jobs with 20% higher salaries than those with satisficing tendencies, although maximizers were less satisfied and had a more negative outlook throughout the job-search process than satisficers. 

This result is reproduced in other studies, which show that despite being more indecisive and having worse psychological outcomes, maximizers perform equally well, if not better, than their satisficing peers.

The solution here is not to abandon all our maximizing goals—whether they be in our personal or professional lives or in the context of public policy—and replace them with satisficing ones. Rather, we should get into the habit of interrogating our ambitions, assessing their importance, and making a rational decision about whether or not they should be satisficed or maximized. In fact, this is something we can even attempt to mathematically model if we are so inclined.⁷ Doing this will not only remove the cognitive stress and load of an excess of maximizing goals, but it will also clear up space for the ones we care most about.