THE IDEA
Good enough is good enough
Herbert Simon coined “satisficing” - a blend of satisfy and suffice - to describe how people actually make decisions. Rather than evaluating every possible option and selecting the optimal one, people set a threshold for “good enough” and choose the first option that meets it.
This sounds lazy. It isn’t. In most real-world situations, finding the optimal choice is impossible. The options are too numerous. The information is too incomplete. The processing cost exceeds the benefit of marginal improvement. A person choosing a restaurant doesn’t evaluate every restaurant in the city. They think of three options, pick the one that meets their criteria (close, affordable, available tonight), and go. The “best” restaurant might exist somewhere in the unsearched space. The cost of finding it would vastly exceed the benefit of eating there.
Satisficing is particularly important in complex systems, where the optimal choice often can’t be identified because the system is too interconnected and adaptive for any model to determine the best action. In these situations, seeking the optimal is not just impractical - it’s impossible. Satisficing isn’t a compromise. It’s the epistemologically honest response to a situation where “optimal” doesn’t exist in any accessible form.
IN PRACTICE
When stopping the search is the smart move
A hiring manager could interview a hundred candidates for a position. Each additional interview marginally increases the chance of finding the best person. But the time cost of interviewing a hundred people is enormous, and the improvement from candidate 30 to candidate 100 is likely negligible. The satisficing approach: define what “good enough” looks like, interview until you find someone who meets the criteria, and hire them. You might miss the theoretical best candidate. You’ll also avoid months of searching and a vacant position.
An organisation choosing a new software platform. The optimising approach: evaluate every option across every criterion, build detailed comparison matrices, run pilots of the top three, make the perfect choice. Duration: six months. The satisficing approach: define the non-negotiable requirements, find three options that meet them, pick the one the team prefers, and start. Duration: three weeks. The satisficing choice might not be theoretically optimal. It starts delivering value five months sooner.
A family choosing a holiday. The optimiser researches every destination, compares prices across every site, reads hundreds of reviews, and delays booking until the best option is certain. The satisficer decides: beach, warm, within budget, available the right week. Finds an option that meets the criteria. Books it. Both families go on holiday. One enjoyed the planning. The other enjoyed five extra months of anticipation.
WORKING WITH THIS
Knowing when good enough is better than best
The key skill is defining “good enough” clearly before you start looking. If you don’t know what threshold you’re aiming for, you’ll either keep searching forever (because nothing feels optimal) or accept something substandard (because you didn’t know what to require).
Satisficing is the right strategy when: the cost of searching for the optimal exceeds the benefit of finding it. When time is a factor and delay has a cost. When the system is complex enough that “optimal” can’t be reliably identified. When the difference between good options is small relative to the difference between acting and not acting.
Optimising is the right strategy when: the decision is high-stakes and irreversible. When the options are few and the comparison is tractable. When the cost of a suboptimal choice is large and the cost of searching is small. The skill is matching the strategy to the situation - not always satisficing, not always optimising, but knowing which one the moment calls for.
THE INSIGHT
The line to remember
Searching for the best option is only rational when the cost of the search is less than the value of the improvement. Most of the time, it isn’t.
RECOGNITION
When this is in play
You’re seeing a need for satisficing when decision paralysis is costing more than a suboptimal choice would. When a team spends more time choosing a tool than they’d spend learning either option. When someone keeps researching because no option feels perfect. When the perfect is the enemy of the good - and the good was available weeks ago.