** This piece is part of my ongoing “2-fer Tuesday” series where I share critical distinctions in how to view and think about the world that may help you see things more clearly - which then supports better thinking, firmer decision making, and wiser action taking. **

Boiled down to its essence, the daily life of many C-Suite Executives comes down to evaluating, options, making decisions, and taking actions. Thinking back to our OODA piece from a few years back, consistently doing these three things quickly and well is the entire job description for long term success. An overlooked aspect of this process is getting to “good enough,” both in terms of the evaluating the information coming in, and in the process of weighing options for action looking forward. Here I’ll cover two places where the best Executives draw the line for “good enough” in order to focus on getting things done. The first is appreciating the trade-offs necessarily involved in the Accuracy vs Precision dynamic and understanding that Accuracy is often the more relevant factor. The second distinction I’ll cover is the relevance of focusing on greater Probabilities vs exploring endless Possibilities.  

TL; DR – Look for where you can make smart trade-offs between Accuracy and Precision for getting to “good enough” for the quality of information coming in. Often times the fuzzier picture is Accurate enough to act on. For decisions going out, limit your time spent exploring the wider range of Possibilities and then hone in on greater Probabilities to optimize your chances for most favorable outcomes. The key to C-Suite success is effectiveness, and quickly getting to “Accurate enough” and then efficiently moving forward with Probabilities will create more and bigger wins over the long term.

1)    Precise vs Accurate – Do you really need to know if there is a 27% chance of rain at exactly 2pm? Or is “cloudy with a chance of afternoon showers” a “good enough” forecast for you to work with? How would knowing more precise details help you here? Or, how about getting an exact head count for your cocktail party vs simply getting a few extra bags of ice instead? How much time and effort are you willing to spend here to offset the $10 spent for extra ice? Going back to the C-Suite, is the Accuracy of your current risk evaluation “good enough” to move on, or do you really need to spend the time and energy pushing for several more degrees of Precision before you make the call?

In so many places we tend to look for more Precision in information coming in as a poor substitute for the felt certainty of decisions going out. While certainly appropriate in some instances, many times the “good enough” answer can be found by orienting to a useful range of Accuracy rather than trying to hone in on greater precision. Beyond just the costs of time and energy spent, the costs of delayed action need to be considered as well as the basic Law of Diminishing Returns.

The next time you find yourself seeking more information or details under the guise of wanting greater precision, pause for a minute to ask yourself how relevant that extra degree of precision will be for your thinking to see if it will truly add to the confidence and certainty in your next move. You may be surprised to see how little impact it would have when you honestly think about it. You may also be surprised at how quickly you can reorient to Accurate-enough-for-Action as your primary reference point after doing this exercise just a few times. 

2)    Probabilities vs Possibilities – Playing the game of “What if?” is an indispensably critical part of the decision making process, especially when approaching a significant strategic pivot point. However, much like some searches for Precision, “exploring all the possibilities” is often just an excuse for not acting in the face of uncertainty. “I just want to be sure” is the statement most often muttered by mid- and low-range performers as they sit and wait for their anticipatory anxiety to subside. Meanwhile, their high-performing peers and colleagues are saying things like “What are the most likely outcomes?”, “What happens to the probabilities when we tweak these variables?”, and “What do we need to know to get to a 70% confidence level?”

Sure, sometimes these high-performers miss when an “unexpected” result occurs, but the entire premise of long term success is consistently moving towards options where the odds are in your favor with a strong bias to iterative action. Those who spend too much time “exploring all the possibilities” tend to forget to factor in the opportunity costs of not acting and often allow their felt uncertainty in the moment to hold them back on the actions that move them forward down the path of success. Ultimately, pushing for more clarity on the top few highest Probabilities and deciding from amongst them is the best course of action for 90% of the scenarios that you face.

Of course, at times it is truly worth it to really slow things down and take some time to explore more possibilities, especially in times of great volatility and significant risk. But the whole premise of “Black Swans” is that they cannot be anticipated. And even when there are obvious disasters looming, such as with the entire US financial system, the real question in play is always the “when” and not the “what.”  

Saving your time and bandwidth for taking deeper dives into just a few places per day will increase both your efficiency AND your effectiveness as a Leader, and orienting to acceptable ranges of Accuracy and most likely Probabilities are some easy tools to bring to bear on your decision making process that you can start using today. Where do you have room to open up your range of Accuracy and let go of your felt need for more Precision? What decisions are you currently sitting on as you seek more awareness of remote Possibilities, and how can refocusing on likely Probabilities allow you to make an informed choice today?