I just listened to this great bit of radio on an NPR podcast. It talks about various studies people are doing about the effects of choice etc. Many of the arguements will be familiar if you're read The Paradox Of Choice.
But although this is really interesting stuff when thinking about people buying things, I think it's potentially more interesting when thinking about how planners and organisations behave when they're thinking about strategy and ideas.
One of the studies described involved students looking for jobs, the researchers analysed their decision styles and found they split into two groups who they described as Maximizers and Satisficers.
Maximizers would study tons and tons of options and only pick the optimal one after careful consideration.
Satisficers would study a few and plump for one fairly quickly.
And, it turned out, Maximizers made much better choices, they tended to get better jobs, with higher pay. Which would suggest that strategically, you should be a Maximizer.
Except of course, it's not that simple. Because the Maximizers were much less satisfied with their choice. All that analysis, in a world where there isn't one perfect choice, just showed them all the things they were potentially missing. They were much less content with the option they'd chosen, and, I bet, much more likely to quit prematurely and try and find something better.
I bet you could easily divide up planners and organisations into Maximizers and Satisficers, and it would be just as valuable. Some planners, some organisations, leave no strategic stone unturned, they investigate every possibility, they draw endless SWOT charts and maps to ensure they've considered every option, and they use rigorous analytical tools to make their ultimate decision about where to go. This probably gets them to a great decision.
But it takes forever and six months later they do it all again.
All the analysis and choice creates Corporate Strategic Unhappiness and there are constant tweaks and changes of direction. There's no commitment to the decision and however great the option they chose was, they execute against it badly and just cause more internal FUD.
Other planners and organisations are Satisficers. They consider a few options, they plump for one fairly quickly and they get on with it. The chances are it's not quite as brilliant a strategy as a Maximizer might come up with, but it doesn't matter because they really commit to it and they execute it without doubt. That makes it a more effective strategy.
All this was going through my head this morning, on the way for breakfast, and it seemed like it's a really interesting question to ask yourself as a strategist - are you Maximizing or Satisficing? - and then, when I logged on today I found this really interesting post from Mr Mysterious Noisy Decent Graphics Guy, which essentially says the same thing but from a more practical point of view.
Think about this next time you're involved with a pitch or something. Do you really need to explore every conceivale strategy and deliniate it's pros and cons in 7point type? Aren't you just irritating your colleagues and your client? Try and be satisfied with less thinking and aim for Strategic Happiness, not Strategic Genius.
