The Art of Choosing the Least Worst: A Humorous Take on Decision-Making
Martin Blunden
Expert in Crisis Leadership, Organisational Resilience & Public Safety | International Advisor | Chief Operating Officer | Mental Health Advocate | Retired Chief Fire Officer
In the grand theatre of life, have you found yourself standing at the crossroads of decision-making, faced with a buffet of options that look about as appetising as a plate of week-old sushi?? I certainly have and it’s in these moments that we must ask ourselves: is it better to hold our noses and choose the least worst option, or should we throw our hands up in despair and refuse to choose at all?
?
The Case for Choosing the Least Worst
Let's face it, sometimes life doesn't give us a silver platter of perfect choices. Instead, we're handed a rusty tin can filled with options that range from "mildly unpleasant" to "downright catastrophic." In these situations, choosing the least worst option might just be the best decision we can make.
Herbert Simon, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, introduced the concept of "satisficing," a delightful portmanteau of "satisfy" and "suffice". This theory suggests that in complex situations, we should aim for a satisfactory solution rather than an optimal one[1]. It's like settling for a mediocre cup of coffee when you're stuck in an airport - it's not great, but it's better than no caffeine at all.
Simon argued that decision-makers can satisfice either by finding optimum solutions for a simplified world or by finding satisfactory solutions for a more realistic world[2]. In other words, sometimes it's better to choose a good enough option in a complex situation than to endlessly search for the perfect solution in an idealised scenario[3][4].
?
The Perils of Indecision
On the flip side, not deciding can be worse than making a bad one. As the old saying goes, "The only bad decision is indecision." This isn't just folksy wisdom; it's backed by research. Studies have shown that decision inertia, or the failure to decide, can lead to worse outcomes than making a suboptimal choice.
Think of it like being chased by a bear. You could spend precious time weighing the pros and cons of climbing a tree versus playing dead, but by the time you've made up your mind, you might already be bear food!! Sometimes, any action is better than no action at all.
Rethinking the Whole Process
But before we resign ourselves to a life of choosing between the lesser of two evils, perhaps we should consider a third option: rethinking the whole process. As Albert Einstein supposedly said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." (Though, to be fair, Einstein probably didn't spend much time pondering whether to choose the chicken or fish option on long-haul flights.)
Simon's concept of bounded rationality comes into play here. He maintained that many natural problems are characterised by computational intractability or a lack of information, both of which preclude the use of mathematical optimisation procedures]. In other words, sometimes we simply don't have enough information or brainpower to make the perfect choice, so we need to work with what we've got.
?
A Humorous Approach to Decision-Making
Perhaps the best approach to decision-making is to inject a little humour into the process. After all, laughter has been shown to reduce stress and improve cognitive function. So, the next time you're faced with a tough decision, try this satisficing approach:
领英推荐
1. Set an aspiration level (α) for your decision. For example, "I want a meal that's at least a 7 out of 10 on the tastiness scale."
2. Choose the first option that meets or exceeds α.
3. If no option has satisfied α after time β, then change α by an amount γ and continue until a satisfying option is found[3].
?
Is it scientific? Well, kind of. Is it rational? According to Simon, it's boundedly rational. Is it more fun than agonising over spreadsheets and pro/con lists? Absolutely[5].
Conclusion
In the end, whether we choose the least worst option, refuse to choose, or rethink the whole process, what matters most is that we learn from our decisions. As Simon himself might have said, "The real economic actor is in fact a satisficer, a person who accepts 'good enough' alternatives, not because less is preferred to more but because there is no choice"[6].
So, let's approach our choices with a bit of levity, a dash of courage, and the knowledge that even if we make the wrong choice, at least we'll have a funny story to tell later. Remember, in the words of the great philosopher Yogi Berra, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." And if all else fails, you can always blame Mercury retrograde.
After all, as Simon's work suggests, we're not perfect decision-makers, but we can be good enough ones. And in a world of complexity and uncertainty, sometimes good enough is, well, good enough.
?