A500.4.3.RB_CliffordMarc
The Challenge of Choice
During a TED Talk by Dr. Sheena Iyengar in which she discussed whether or not having more choices helps a person to be more satisfied with their decisions, she makes a few assumption about the way Americans see choices. She says:
-Americans want to make their own choices.
-Americans think that more options leads to better choices.
-Americans believe they should never say no to choice.
I agree that the assumptions Dr. Iyengar makes about how people see choices are accurate for most Americans. However, from a leadership point of view, further analysis of each assumption is merited to determine any implications that might cause negative impacts on leaders and the organizations they work with. As leaders better understand each of these assumptions they will be able to approach their work more efficiently and help their organizations, and the individuals involved, make the best choices.
Leaders need to be aware that most people, especially Americans, want to make their own decisions and are more productive and efficient when they are given that opportunity. (Iyengar, 2010). Leaders can help by not issuing mandates, but by guiding and coaching their teams to make informed decisions. Participants in the decision process are more likely to support decisions because they feel personally invested, therefore they are more likely to expend the extra effort required to ensure success.
I have seen this principle at work with my children. If my wife or I ask our children to do extra chores it is not unusual to hear some complaining. They might ask “why do I have to do it?” or “how long do I have to do this?” Earlier this year my wife and I decided to remove the old carpet from two bedrooms, the hall, and the stairs and replace it with vinyl plank floor. We knew we would have time to do it on Memorial Day, so early that morning we started pulling out the carpet, padding, tack strip, and removing staples. Only a few minutes after beginning our children started coming and asking if they could help. One by one, all six of our kids, ages 3 to 13, asked if they could help. All of them helped until the last staple was pulled without complaining. They had each made the decision for themself that they wanted to help so we did not need to ask, force, or coerce them.
Dr. Iyengar makes the assumption that Americans think that more options will lead to us make better choices. Although we generally want more options and choices, Tugend suggests that “Research also shows that an excess of choices often leads us to be less, not more, satisfied once we actually decide. There’s often that nagging feeling we could have done better” (2010). Too many choices can cause paralysis by analysis.
I experience this phenomenon when I go to eat at a restaurant that has a large variety of menu items. In fact it is not unusual for me to complain that I cannot make a decision because there are too many options! I cannot decide if I want the fish tacos or the fajita burrito. Than when I finally decide what meal I want I have to decide what side to order, and whether or not I want to add guacamole. If the menu were smaller I would struggle less to make a choice, and I would be less likely to experience that “I should have tried the fish tacos” feeling.
One way for leaders to overcome the potential to be paralyzed by too many choices is to become comfortable with the concept of “good enough” (Tugend, 2010). I have learned that this simple solution helps to prevent the feeling of remorse that often exists after making a major decision. It is not unusual to question a decision after it has been made; to ask ourselves, “was that the best choice, could I have chosen better?” I have often heard friends express frustration with choices while searching for a home to purchase. The frustrations generally arise because they have been unable to find a home that meets all of their qualifications. I have had friends tell me they loved everything about a house but did not make an offer because a relatively minor feature they wanted was lacking. Perhaps it did not have two vanity sinks in the master bathroom, or the kitchen cabinets were white and they wanted stained wood. When my wife and I have been searching for a home for our family we have never made a list of qualifications. After looking at a potential home to buy we have always asked ourselves “will this work for our family” as opposed to “is this the one?”
Americans believe that they should never say no to choice. However, studies show that there are times when it is not in the best interest of the individual to make a decision. For example, one study indicates that although most people recognize that they should be saving for the future in a retirement account or 401(k), if too many fund options are available it can cause people to avoid making a decision. “Studies have shown that if more fund options are offered, fewer people participate. And the highest participation rates are among those employees who are automatically enrolled in their company’s 401(k)’s unless they actively choose not to” (Tugend, 2010). When the decision was limited to having to choose not to participate, more people made the decision that was in their best self interest.
One way leaders can deal with this assumption is by limiting the number of options they provide to the organization they oversee when a choice needs to be made. The leader has the responsibility to ensure that well thought solutions to problems are presented to the group. The choice is thus limited to whether or not the proposed solution is supported and adopted, or disapproved and rejected. If it is rejected the leader must then start the process again by modifying the existing proposal to meet the demands, or coming up with a new proposal to present to the group for acceptance. I have employed this technique in my volunteer position as a bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. When the ward council and I have decisions to make I typically present a solution to them and ask how each member feels about it, instead of simply asking what we should do to resolve the issue. This limits the choice to being only a yes or no decision. This is done even by the U.S. Congress. When decisions need to be made that have serious implications for our country committees are formed that are tasked with researching the options and finding a solution. The committee than comes up with a proposal which they present to the congress. The decision that congress makes is to either accept the proposed solution or reject it. The choice is limited to only two options.
References:
Iyengar, S. (2010). Dr. Sheena Iyengar: The art of choosing [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing?language=en
Tugend, A. (2010, February 26). Too many choices: a problem that can paralyze. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html
 |
| Photo credit: mmnexpert.com |
-Americans want to make their own choices.
-Americans think that more options leads to better choices.
-Americans believe they should never say no to choice.
I agree that the assumptions Dr. Iyengar makes about how people see choices are accurate for most Americans. However, from a leadership point of view, further analysis of each assumption is merited to determine any implications that might cause negative impacts on leaders and the organizations they work with. As leaders better understand each of these assumptions they will be able to approach their work more efficiently and help their organizations, and the individuals involved, make the best choices.
Leaders need to be aware that most people, especially Americans, want to make their own decisions and are more productive and efficient when they are given that opportunity. (Iyengar, 2010). Leaders can help by not issuing mandates, but by guiding and coaching their teams to make informed decisions. Participants in the decision process are more likely to support decisions because they feel personally invested, therefore they are more likely to expend the extra effort required to ensure success.
I have seen this principle at work with my children. If my wife or I ask our children to do extra chores it is not unusual to hear some complaining. They might ask “why do I have to do it?” or “how long do I have to do this?” Earlier this year my wife and I decided to remove the old carpet from two bedrooms, the hall, and the stairs and replace it with vinyl plank floor. We knew we would have time to do it on Memorial Day, so early that morning we started pulling out the carpet, padding, tack strip, and removing staples. Only a few minutes after beginning our children started coming and asking if they could help. One by one, all six of our kids, ages 3 to 13, asked if they could help. All of them helped until the last staple was pulled without complaining. They had each made the decision for themself that they wanted to help so we did not need to ask, force, or coerce them.
Dr. Iyengar makes the assumption that Americans think that more options will lead to us make better choices. Although we generally want more options and choices, Tugend suggests that “Research also shows that an excess of choices often leads us to be less, not more, satisfied once we actually decide. There’s often that nagging feeling we could have done better” (2010). Too many choices can cause paralysis by analysis.
I experience this phenomenon when I go to eat at a restaurant that has a large variety of menu items. In fact it is not unusual for me to complain that I cannot make a decision because there are too many options! I cannot decide if I want the fish tacos or the fajita burrito. Than when I finally decide what meal I want I have to decide what side to order, and whether or not I want to add guacamole. If the menu were smaller I would struggle less to make a choice, and I would be less likely to experience that “I should have tried the fish tacos” feeling.
One way for leaders to overcome the potential to be paralyzed by too many choices is to become comfortable with the concept of “good enough” (Tugend, 2010). I have learned that this simple solution helps to prevent the feeling of remorse that often exists after making a major decision. It is not unusual to question a decision after it has been made; to ask ourselves, “was that the best choice, could I have chosen better?” I have often heard friends express frustration with choices while searching for a home to purchase. The frustrations generally arise because they have been unable to find a home that meets all of their qualifications. I have had friends tell me they loved everything about a house but did not make an offer because a relatively minor feature they wanted was lacking. Perhaps it did not have two vanity sinks in the master bathroom, or the kitchen cabinets were white and they wanted stained wood. When my wife and I have been searching for a home for our family we have never made a list of qualifications. After looking at a potential home to buy we have always asked ourselves “will this work for our family” as opposed to “is this the one?”
Americans believe that they should never say no to choice. However, studies show that there are times when it is not in the best interest of the individual to make a decision. For example, one study indicates that although most people recognize that they should be saving for the future in a retirement account or 401(k), if too many fund options are available it can cause people to avoid making a decision. “Studies have shown that if more fund options are offered, fewer people participate. And the highest participation rates are among those employees who are automatically enrolled in their company’s 401(k)’s unless they actively choose not to” (Tugend, 2010). When the decision was limited to having to choose not to participate, more people made the decision that was in their best self interest.
One way leaders can deal with this assumption is by limiting the number of options they provide to the organization they oversee when a choice needs to be made. The leader has the responsibility to ensure that well thought solutions to problems are presented to the group. The choice is thus limited to whether or not the proposed solution is supported and adopted, or disapproved and rejected. If it is rejected the leader must then start the process again by modifying the existing proposal to meet the demands, or coming up with a new proposal to present to the group for acceptance. I have employed this technique in my volunteer position as a bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. When the ward council and I have decisions to make I typically present a solution to them and ask how each member feels about it, instead of simply asking what we should do to resolve the issue. This limits the choice to being only a yes or no decision. This is done even by the U.S. Congress. When decisions need to be made that have serious implications for our country committees are formed that are tasked with researching the options and finding a solution. The committee than comes up with a proposal which they present to the congress. The decision that congress makes is to either accept the proposed solution or reject it. The choice is limited to only two options.
References:
Iyengar, S. (2010). Dr. Sheena Iyengar: The art of choosing [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing?language=en
Tugend, A. (2010, February 26). Too many choices: a problem that can paralyze. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html
Comments
Post a Comment