Avoiding Analysis Paralysis

“Everyone has the same 24 hours in the day.” While misleading as a motivational quote (different people have different resources)… There is a kernel of truth that connects to my view of the world. Namely, while my day may look very different from yours, my limited hours are up to me to manage.

A few posts back I described a scenario where the key opportunity was to cut your losses early. Judging the right amount of effort to spend on any given task is how we can make the most of our finite resources. Do it well, and you have extra time each day compared to the version of you that didn’t choose so wisely.

As a teen I struggled with indecision. Ok – some people might say I am still prone to over-analyzing things. But much of what I have been trying to do with my work on the meta-problem is related to choosing the right level of analysis to pursue. I want to communicate through this idea that we have a choice of problems, and those options each come with a level of effort and potential benefits. When you compare those candidate problems and judge them on their benefits and costs (in effort, time, dollars, etc.), I argue you can make better decisions.

This blog provides windows into my overall framework in the hope that it will make them more relevant to my audience. Last summer I wrote a draft academic paper to make sure I had the entire framework down. I have shared it with a few folks since then to see what they thought (Thanks to Don Kleinmuntz, Richard Larson, Irv Lustig, Russ Meller, Mitch Millstein, Katie Tippey, Emily Tucker, and Kathryn Walter for your thoughts. Email me if you’re reading this and would like to see the draft). Based on the feedback I concluded it required a complete rewrite if I wanted to get it published. Not so much to change the framework itself, but to communicate more clearly how the framework could turn into something actionable.

In most of my other writing, I touch on a lot of little ways my framework works. I accept that not every post will resonate with everyone. But I hope that it can help you (the reader) grow as a problem solver over time. My promise is that with the bigger picture in mind, you can avoid analysis paralysis while also ensuring you make the best decisions you can. As I try every day to grow my skills, I find getting practice in a variety of situations is key.

Last week I had the privilege to run a professional development session for all the teachers at my kids’ elementary school. I had noticed that the people who seem to “get” the meta-problem best are the ones who try it out. Oftentimes with me coaching them through the process if they get stuck on a particular step. I decided to use some of my limited session time to have the audience give the process a shot. I developed a worksheet to guide them through it (shared here a couple weeks ago as a pdf download. But now it’s on my website too).

Only giving folks about ten minutes and no individual coaching was not 100% effective. One person in the audience decided to see if she could figure out how to exercise more and shared that she had no new insights through the process. I did also have at least one success story – someone who was considering getting a puppy and realized she was not willing to get up a million times a night for the first several months and so she definitely did not want a puppy (fostering sounded better).

When trying to solve a meta-problem, I figure there are really only three outcomes:

1. You realize that your top choice is good enough, and you should stop wasting time wishing you had a better option.

2. You realize that there is a better option out there, and it becomes your new top choice.

3. You decide that your current top choice is not good enough given the downside risks, and so it is worth investing more resources into trying to find something better.

With each of these options, you are assessing if you want to put more energy into the analysis, or if it’s just time to get comfortable with where you’re at. If you are not willing to be ok with your current top choice, keep looking!

Ultimately, the idea of analysis paralysis indicates being stuck between outcomes 1 and 3. You have a top choice, it’s maybe good enough, but you wish there was something better. Part of my framework is meant to cut through that wishing and get down to a realistic understanding of the possible upside. We don’t call it analysis paralysis when we spend a week deciding which car to buy, because a car purchase is a big decision. Spending a week mulling over which brand of peanut butter to get… there’s not enough upside to possibly be worth that much energy.

My call to action this week is that next time you find yourself wishing you had a better option, but not finding one: take that step back. Lay out what you think a better option might look like, and think about how much extra effort it might take you to get there.