There are only trade-offs

One of my favorite quotes, from one my favorite contemporary thinkers as well, is from the American economist Thomas Sowell:

There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs.”

I find it insightful because it reminds me that the pursue of the perfect may be the enemy of progress. Or as a kind of maxim version would look like:

Progress over perfection.

It happens to match well with both the way my mind tend to work and my experience who validates it over and over again. With the idea of “optionality” being a way to think about it.

Both, from a static standpoint: what’s the best option now with what we know today?; as well as from a dynamic aspect: given how things are and could evolve, what are sensible options to keep in mind? How could things play out?

The other day at work during lunch, I was in a small group and we happened to be talking about football (or soccer for the ‘Mericans out there) supporters and the fact that even in so-civilized Belgium there are still issues with groups that go to matches willing to pick a fight or at least be an annoyance for the others only wanting to enjoy the match. They cover their faces, which is technically illegal on the streets in Belgium, they run over by outnumbering the police (which often seem hopeless – “nothing they can do about it” – some would claim…), all that kind of stuff.

We went on to discuss that there has been countries that manage to tame that much better. And actually it didn’t take a whole lot – it took making an example of a few, throwing all the laws in the books at them, and now all the others know what could happen. So they don’t engage in that behavior anymore.

An idealistic person could look at that and say: that’s actually not fully fair. Those few that took the hit were not the only ones misbehaving, why only them taking consequences?

I think Sowell would agree with me that’s what thinking only in “solutions” sounds like. The “trade-off” version (making an example out of some) is what actually ends up making the situation much better (even largely solving the problem).

In fact, if we really think about it, many of the rules we have as a society work exactly that way. Do laws against alcohol consumption for minors entirely inhibit teenagers of having a drink? It hasn’t been my experience… Do we still think they are valuable because they create a sensible barrier? Of course! And that’s really the point… That trade-off right there…

In line with what a great leader and thinker like Andrew Grove would praise*, the life of middle-managers (which is what I do for a living) particularly in organizations can be basically summarized as mastering the art of trade-offs. Don’t get me wrong, it’s also fundamentally true for more senior leadership positions, it’s a universal pattern, but I believe is more so for middle-managers, for their closeness to the real work on the ground.

The distinction really being that is too tempting, and in fact, in alignment with what you expect a senior leader to focus on, for higher-level roles to articulate simple statements that are meant to give the constraints (of the moment, or foreseeable future, or relatively stable long-term maxims, whatever the context might be). For example:

This year we really need to focus on things that will create short-term value, given the underlying circumstances we are at!

Fair enough. I love the idea of focusing on value. But do they really mean forget anything else, like a sustainable way of doing things, let’s just do skunk work that creates short-term value?! I rarely thing that would be the case…

What they are rather indicating is a way to think about and resolve potential conflicts and make trade-offs. Maybe in another moment, we would be favoring long-term strategy and not be too worried with the value now / short-term. But now that the statement is made, the constraints are clearer, it’s clear which way we should resolve a potential conflict.

We should still put in the work and understand how could we create short-term value without compromising too much long-term. And maybe chances are that there will be times they are not at odds to each other, in which case the trade-off is quite easy: let’s make sure short- and long-term continue going hand and hand!

I think I will leave at this conceptual level for now. I don’t want to make this to long. I may have to get back to it with some more context-relevant example in our world of product development. I didn’t mean initially this to be sequel, but I think it’s for the best that it is… (to be continued)

* For the benefits of those that don’t have the reference, I am alluding here to stories he describes in “Only the Paranoid Survive”, like when Intel leadership was still debate whether they should pivot their strategy to then learn, when they finally made up their minds, that middle-managers had been using their agency to slowly transition on the ground in line with the new pivoted strategy. In other words, they were sensing the shift and were making some tactical trade-offs for the benefit of the organization upfront.

By Rodrigo Sperb, feel free to connect, I'm happy to engage and interact. I’m passionate about leading to achieve better outcomes with better ways of working. How can I help you?