Monday Motivation: Perfectionism, and Escaping Its Stranglehold (Or: Good Enough is Good Enough)

"Good enough is good enough" It's obvious, but yet so hard to embrace. Why? And what can we do to escape the stranglehold of perfectionism? Here are some answers.

We know that “good enough is good enough.” How could it not be? But we don’t generally behave accordingly. Instead, we ensnare ourselves in the self-built trap of perfectionism by ignoring this obvious truth and aiming beyond what is necessary. Why? And what can we do to break free of this common destructive trait?

We start by understanding both the attraction and the flaws of perfectionism.

The biggest attraction of perfectionism is its simplicity, because it stands in contrast to the complicated question, “How much is enough?” And that’s both subjective and vexingly difficult to pin down.

What is enough in one situation might be inadequate in another; what suffices for one person might disappoint the next. So determining “enough” requires elusive clarity — about our goals, about our priorities, about our internal and external costs, and about the trade-offs we’re willing to make as we balance all of these.

Furthermore, no amount of hard work can guarantee enough information for us to come to a decisive conclusion. We don’t know what other people will think. We don’t know what we ourselves will think.

And we have to allow for miscalculations. Even engineers, who know exactly how much is enough, regularly over-engineer their projects in case they’re wrong.

In the face of such a complex, nebulous, and unclear constellation of considerations, shooting for perfection can seem like the path with the lowest emotional cost. “Enough is enough” is devilishly complicated. But perfectionism is easy: Never stop.

Working in tandem with this drive toward the simplicity of perfectionism is the seemingly obvious belief that more is always better. It has to be, right? If four hours of work is better than three hours of work, surely five hours of work is better yet. Walking four miles a day is healthier than walking three, so five must be healthier yet. (Even as I write this — and anyone who has ever written anything knows what’s coming next — I’m asking myself if my text here needs one more revision.)

In this regard, popular psychology also does us a disservice, by highlighting the “more is always better” approach: “all or nothing,” “go big or go home,” “give it your all,” “110%,” “the sky’s the limit,” “second place is the first loser,” “give it everything you’ve got,” “you can’t be too careful,” “better safe than sorry.”

But all of this is misguided.

More is not always better. Rather:

Going too far is as bad as not going far enough.¹

This is from Confucius. The context is two students. One doesn’t do enough. The other doesn’t know when to stop. Surely going too far is better, right? Better safe than sorry, right? Wrong, Confucius says. Both extremes are bad.

Aristotle agrees:

Virtue is a midpoint. How? In that it is a midpoint between two vices, one of overshooting² and the other of deficiency.³˒⁴

(Aristotle actually calls this “moral” virtue, but his concept extends beyond what we would now call “morality.”)

Aristotle goes on to warn that finding this midpoint is a difficult task. It’s easy to become angry at someone or to give money to someone, he says. But just as specialized knowledge of geometry is required to find the middle of a circle, he adds, so too it’s hard to be angry with, or to give money to, the right people in the right amount at the right time for the right purpose in the right way.

For this reason:

Doing well [by finding the midpoint] is rare and praiseworthy and noble.⁵

Again: against such a challenge, is it any wonder that we embrace perfectionism?

Our difficulty in compromising is compounded by both external and internal pressures. We don’t want to disappoint people at work or at home, and over-delivering can feel safer than risking criticism. And perhaps most diabolically, we don’t want to disappoint ourselves, and — particularly in the social-media era — we are surrounded by unrealistic benchmarks.

But we pursue perfection at our own peril. In chasing extreme standards we drain resources that could be better spent elsewhere. And trying to do everything perfectly leaves us less capable of doing what truly matters well.

Even excellence is sometimes pursued at our own peril. Not everything has to be great. Over-doing is as bad as under-doing. We need balance.

Good enough is good enough.

The road to “good enough” is a rough one, guarded menacingly with superfluous warning signs that steer us away. We are smitten with excellence and poisoned against mediocrity. But “mediocrity” was not originally bad! It meant “neither good nor bad.” While there is nothing wrong with excellence, neither is there anything wrong with mediocrity. Take it from Aristotle (a pretty successful guy) and Confucius (another man who did pretty well for himself).

This week, give good-enough a shot, at least once. Pick one task and commit to doing just enough.

As I say, it’s a rough road, but I think you'll like where it leads.

1. 子貢問：「師與商也，孰賢？」子曰：「師也過，商也不及。」曰：「然則師愈與？」子曰：「過猶不及。」Analects 11.16, c. 500 BCE.

2. That is, ὑπερβολὴν, which gives us the related English word “hyperbole”

3. That is, ἔλλειψις, which gives us the related English word “ellipsis.”

4. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐστὶν ἡ ἀρετὴ ἡ ἠθικὴ μεσότης, καὶ πῶς, καὶ ὅτι μεσότης δύο κακιῶν, τῆς μὲν καθ᾿ ὑπερβολὴν τῆς δὲ κατ᾿ ἔλλειψιν. Nicomachean Ethics, II 1109a, 4th c. BCE.

5. Διόπερ τὸ εὖ καὶ σπάνιον καὶ ἐπαινετὸν καὶ καλόν. Nicomachean Ethics, II 1109a, 4th c. BCE.