Why seeking perfection may be an imperfect strategy

Professional golfers often aim below perfection because the miss matters. Finishing near the hole leaves a manageable next shot; attacking the exact point can produce a worse position more often.

Businesses say they understand this and then write targets requiring every variable to behave. A launch must be complete, elegant, scalable and delivered on the first announced date. A forecast must hit one number. A new process must solve the whole category before anyone may test it with fifty customers. Perfection is attractive because it removes the need to discuss error. There will be none. Splendid.

A robust target includes the likely miss. What result leaves a recoverable next action? What level of quality protects the customer while preserving the ability to learn? Which failure would be expensive enough to justify extra precision? This is no excuse for careless work. Aircraft parts, dosage calculations and pension transfers do not need a jaunty speech about iteration. The acceptable margin depends on the consequence. The argument is against spending unlimited effort on the final percentage where variance will erase it anyway.

Sometimes the direct shot works. It can even win admiration. Over many attempts, the player judged by consistency may prefer the position that makes the next action ordinary. The ball stops a foot below the hole. Nobody writes a case study. The putt is made.

Behavioural principles

Behavioural ideas at play in this post

Short, plain-English explanations of the principles behind this post, with links to related books and examples in the archive.