Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Good Enough Or Optimal

People lean towards one of two types in their decision-making: maximizers and satisficers. Maximizing ensures we get the most out of the choices we make. Satisficing concentrates on a “good enough” approach. Each comes with benefits and drawbacks. Maximizers seek to make it perfect. They weigh choices to assess which is the best one. When maximizers decide, they are very well informed. The trouble is they try to get everything right. They are perfectionists. Thus neither maximizing nor satisficing is the best path.

Once we decide, as maximizers we tend to regret the outcome. The process of deliberating and choosing an option after seriously considering others is time-consuming and resource-heavy. It is associated with decision-regret and counterfactual thinking. Second-guessing. Maximizers are more likely to end up depressed, overly perfectionistic, and prone to regret and/or self-blame. On the other extreme are satisficers, who rather make decisions quickly than overthink it. They’re fine with what’s acceptable.

Unlike maximizers, satisficers do not require every option or lots of information to make a decision. They rely less on outside sources—less scouring of online reviews—and more on internal judgments. They decide faster and wage outcomes less. The drawback here is that, while the decision is reached quickly, it does not always result in the optimal outcome or maximal return. Maximizing graduates find jobs that earn them more money and start businesses that reach higher levels of success. That being said, maximizers feel less happy with their fatter wallets.

As a general rule, maximizers do better and feel worse. They get better jobs, and are less satisfied with these positions. The question to be asked is whether the objective or subjective result is more important to you. If it’s the former, maximize. If it’s the latter, satisfice. Like with extroversion and introversion, most people fall somewhere on the spectrum. Look at decisions which have shaped your life. Have you opted in for the best possible or the good enough? Do you often deliberate for a while only to regret a choice?

In applying this framework, be mindful that satisficing and maximizing suit different contexts. Decisions that greatly impact your life deserve maximizing. Whereas trivial choices like a breakfast cereal or where to get a coffee can suffice with satisficing. Avoid impulsive decisions. Aim for the Aristotelean “golden mean”. People who are impulsive should start thinking. People who are deliberative should stop thinking. This is, of course, easier said than done.

Real life implications of maximizing versus satisficing:

• Career: maximizers seek the perfect job, spending months analyzing companies, jobs, and paths; satisficers choose a job that aligns with their skills, interests, and minimum salary requirements, rather than searching indefinitely—use this by maximizing during high-stakes career moves and satisficing for less critical decisions like choosing short-form contracts;

• Relationships: maximizers continually search for the perfect partner, evaluating and analyzing compatibility, potentially resulting in commitment issues; satisficers choose somebody who meets a few key criteria;

• Purchases: maximizers get into the nitty-gritty details of products and services they invest in, while satisficers grab the first product which meets their basic needs—use the maximizing lens for high-stakes finance like property or vehicles and satisficing for most everything else;

• Time management: maximizers obsess over perfecting their schedule and productivity, whilst satisficers use a good enough time-blocking methodology and go with the flow;

• Business: maximizers aim for the perfect strategy, product, or campaign, delaying execution for quality; satisficers launch a minimal-viable product to test the market and iterate based on feedback—utilize satisficing for speed and employ feedback loops to improve in fast-paced markets, reserving maximizing for foundational strategy.

How you might choose between maximizing and satisficing: (1) set priorities, identifying which decisions are better suited to maximizing—career moves, buying property, investing big funds—and which suffice with satisficing—what to eat and wear; (2) define what good enough is to you, setting clear, minimum criteria for satisficing to avoid overthinking; (3) know when to stop, setting deadlines and limits for maximizing-style thinking to stop research and contemplation at reasonable bounds; (4) test and iterate, starting with a satisficing approach to embrace uncertainty and maximizing as you gather feedback. Understand the trade-offs. Maximizing is ideal for situations with lasting consequences. Satisficing is better for routine and low-stakes decisions.

Thought-provoking insights. “Perfect is the enemy of good.” a classic by Voltaire, warning against the abysmal claws of perfectionism that often come from maximizing. Don’t let them grab you. Maximizing gears you for the optimal outcome. It is suitable for irreversible, high-stakes decisions, encouraging thorough analysis. Maximizing is time-consuming and resource-heavy. You will regret your choices more. Satisficing saves you time and energy by avoiding exhaustive analyses. It reduces stress and leaves more cognitive resources for other tasks. Particularly useful in fast-paced environments. Weigh the trade-offs. Trade.