Good Enough

On Oct. 29, 2012, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “Inside the Minds of the Perfectionists.”¹   The basic message was that while perfectionism is not a recognized disease, it has some components of obsessive-compulsive disorder and the outcomes can be harmful to the individual (e.g. increases in procrastination, workaholism, insomnia, etc.). What drew my attention was what I have come to see as the opposite effect when perfectionism, to some degree, does not exist in the behaviors of organizational members and leaders. While no one wants to be around a perfectionist, the alternate is just as unpleasant. I call this a belief in good enough, which is defined as reaching a standard just beyond sufficiency and satisficing, moving just within the bounds of acceptability.

There is agreement that in day-to-day business, one is faced with so many conflicting priorities that it is necessary to make choices. Tasks of greater importance should capture greater levels of effort and vice-versa.  Steven Covey² created a categorization system that, when adopted for a business setting, can benefit this categorization process. He identified four categories of work:

** Important and Urgent – Something that must be attended to immediately. Example: A request from the boss to complete a project by the end of the day.

** Important but Not Urgent – Important work that is not as urgent to complete. Examples: Stepping back and considering the strategic direction of the organization or unit.  Another is business planning.

** Not Important but Urgent – Something that is pressing but is not so important. Example: Phone call from a friend.

**Not Important and Not Urgent – Something that could be considered useless and a waste of time. Example: Gossip.

Each grouping signals a need for a certain level of attention with a matching level of effort. The expectation would be that as the degree of importance increases, more effort and attention is directed at that activity, so the result can be defined as excellent. The opposite is true for less important tasks; the worker makes the strategic decision to reach only sufficiency in the result.

Unfortunately, I believe that sufficiency or satisficing has become the standard or rule in business today. That is, the tactical decision to apply and seek different level outcomes depending on the importance level of the task no longer exists and has been replaced by do what is good enough. I propose there are two problems that have caused this result. The first is overload and the second pertains to leadership.

Overload results from the business trying to get too much done with too few people. Businesses are trying to do everything and be everything, instead of selecting and focusing; each new goal just gets added to the pile without consideration to all the other projects already there. The result is that leaders and workers no longer have time to calibrate their level of effort, and instead the aim is finishing projects and not reaching for excellence. 

The leaders are central to this issue on two fronts. One is recognition that there is a need for careful assignment of tasks and that work overload should be avoided. Hard choices must be made as to what is important. The second is a failure to recognize how sufficiency, satisficing and good enough has become the rule instead of the exception, and what this acceptance can do to a business.  

The evidence for the dominance of "good enough" is abundant. Walk into any fast-food restaurant and the customer will be lucky if the workers even stop talking and joking amongst themselves to help. Within organizations, this is also apparent. It has become almost acceptable for workers to show up late for meetings or not respond to requests. Meeting facilitators (and college professors) must share the attention of participants while they respond to a text message or email on their phones. Finally, busy project participants will provide answers to important questions off the cuff without a modicum of research. Knee-jerk reactions have become more commonplace – who has the time to understand a problem?

In our businesses today, we have almost trained ourselves to believe these behaviors and outcomes are acceptable. Nothing is more worrisome than how this has entered the educational system. Students have come to believe that “good enough” is acceptable and deserves the ‘A.’ When a faculty member insists on excellence, students rebel and punish him or her with complaints and poor evaluations. Eventually teachers realize that it is far easier to conform than push forward with what is truly best for the students. Frankly, most institutions don’t have the stomach for approaching excellence, and education has become a consumer-driven enterprise. Leaders in organizations no doubt experience a similar worker response.

All is not lost, however. There are organizations that exemplify excellence. I am not referring to the organizations that claim excellence but are not. I am talking about organizations that truly deliver consistently excellent service and outcomes. And we know them all. They are the ones that have been able to maintain a standard well above satisficing and somehow continue to motivate excellence from workers.

Steve Jobs and Apple Computers provide a good example. Jobs’ drive to perfectionism led Apple to the position it is in today. As a leader, he may have kept too much control, but it was this drive for excellence that made it great. Bill Gates also fits into this category. There are other everyday examples all around us. The captain in the cockpit of an airplane insists on excellence and perfectionism. Similarly, a surgical team requires excellence. High-performance cultures use checklists to monitor results and automated alarms to keep a spotlight on what is important, and they never back down – excellence is the only option.

Since there are many exemplars that reveal the ability to reach and maintain excellence, other businesses must mimic these high-performance cultures. As stated earlier, I believe it points to the need for a certain type of leader. I don't want to advocate perfectionism but certainly something in that direction. I think a leader also must recognize the importance of focus. Loading workers with layers and layers of projects and tasks is likely to lead to satisficing. It would also be beneficial if consumers were not as accepting of "good enough." Studies show that when customers are more satisfied, so are workers.

Perfectionism is considered a need to be perfect amidst fallible beings. While we have become accustomed to “good enough” outcomes, it is not sufficient to drive organizational success. Leaders need to find a way to motivate excellence and be willing to handle the associated stresses. “Good enough” mentality has become a cancer that hinders organizational progress. The change starts with the leader.

Feel free to respond with questions.

References

¹ Beck, M. (2012). Inside the Minds of the Perfectionists. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved at WSJ.com on 11-8-12. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578085802751238578.html?mod=rss_Health&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frss%2F3_7089+%28WSJ.com%3A+Health%29

² Covey, S.R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster.