The courage not to act

Finding the sweet spot is never easy. I wrote before about how already Aristotle posited that the optimal is usually somewhere in the middle, but there is no way to be certain of exactly where. Besides, there is always the risk that one solution is optimal in one sense bu completely flawed in the other: it could be sensible from the point of view of effort, but excessively expensive to implement.

However, the trickiest decision is very often whether to do anything at all. It might seen that doing something is always warranted, but that is not the case. There are many circumstances where a random action is not only not helpful but entirely harmful. But is is much easier to just do something that will not help than plainly admitting that there is nothing we can do or, even worse, being accused of lacking the courage to take action.

Photo:Sara

I came to this thought on occasion of a conversation I had with my mom about one instance when she recommended keeping a a patient in observation because there was no clear indication for surgery. When he got worse, the doctor in the next shift accused her of not wanting to go into the operating room because it was already 6 a.m. Of course she fired back at her colleague that it would have been a temerity to just "do something" without credible hints as to what should be done to the patient.

This story folds back to two themes that I find simply ridiculous and have discussed before: on the one hand the idea that there is always something you can do, because very often the right answer is to just sit still, keep your eyes open and wait to see what what is coming; the other concept that I abhor is the illusion of control, because even if we actually do something there are many other factors in play that might result in unexpected or even undesired consequences. This should not be interpreted in a fatalistic way, as if nothing were worth trying. On the contrary, risks and benefits should be carefully gauged and, if the analysis comes positive, action should be undertaking with full effort, just keeping all the time an eye on the fact that things can go awry and this should not surprise anyone. On this topic I love a quote frequently attributed to Mark Twain: "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."

There is, however, one word of caution that I always share in the the teams that I work with: if the decision between two options is taking longer (or costing more) than both options combined it is probably better to just try one and, only if that fails, go for the second one. Of course, this only works as long as one option does not close the door to the other. It would not make sense to "wait and see" and, at the same time "do something; they are mutually exclusive. But when the options are compatible with one another (e.g. using equipment A or B) as long as the cost of changing the equipment is affordable in the frame of the project having a quick decision might save more than in working hours or delay fees than the additional cost of re-tooling. And all this because it is simply very hard to predict how one solution is going to work out in the end.

One paradigmatic example of this quick decision is looking for a parking space that the shopping mall. It is clear that, by circling around, you might find a free space that is even closer than the one that you have already found. However, it is not clear how long it will take you to find a new spot or how much closer to the door it is going to be. Karen hates taking sub-optimal solutions, so she prefers driving a bit longer, but whenever I am at the wheel I tend to park as soon as I find a reasonable spot (or reach the conclusion that no reasonable spots are available). Then it sometimes happens that, as we walk our way to the entrance, we find an empty space and she goes "See? There were other spaces closer" to which I always reply "And how long would it have taken us to find them?"

It is not that my rules for decision-making are universally valid, but I try to apply just these two: not doing anything is a perfectly valid decision (even if waiting might allow life to take the decision in your stead), and when something has definitely to be done, if none of the options is obviously more promising, picking at random (or tossing a coin) might be better than agonizing over the decision for days or months, because indecision is, in some sense, tantamount to choosing neither A nor B. What are your strategies? Do they differ significantly from mine? I hope you have a nice evening.