Why “Good Enough” Beats “Perfect” in Your Job Search (and Hiring), Makes You Happier, and Saves Time

Andrew Gurman

Have you struggled with whether to accept a job offer, paralyzed by the fear of missing out on a more “perfect” opportunity? The abundance of options often leads to decision paralysis. But what if settling for “good enough” could actually make you happier and more successful than chasing the elusive “best”?

Satisficing Approach and Research

Making decisions about a new job, mate/life partner, house/apartment, and investment choices all involve choosing among many potential options: both real and hypothetical. Accepting the “good enough” option rather than the “best” option makes us happier and saves time.

This idea comes from Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon, who coined the term satisficing: a decision-making heuristic where you define a minimum acceptable standard and choose the first option that meets it. It’s the opposite of maximizing—endlessly chasing the “best” choice and often ending up less satisfied.

The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz emphasizes the greater happiness of satisficers versus maximizers. In a world of almost unlimited choices, maximizers exert great effort to find the “best” option. Not only do they compare the option they’re considering against other existing options, but also against hypothetical options. Satisficers, in contrast, take the “good enough” option. Their approach is simple: choose a standard, and if an option meets that standard, take it and stop looking. If it doesn’t meet the standard, then keep looking.

Satisficers are happier than maximizers in their choices and with life in general, and they save time. Because satisficers don’t endlessly weigh alternatives, they avoid the dissatisfaction that comes from wondering what they might have missed (buyer’s remorse). And because they don’t chase perfection in their choices, they don’t waste time imagining an idealized world where the perfect option exists.

Even when overwhelmed by choice, people can choose to be satisficers by letting go of the notion that the “best” is attainable. Thomas Sowell’s wise words ring true: “There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.” This liberating concept can provide reassurance when someone is choosing one option over another. Similarly, dating consultant Amy Chan writes about the sh*t bucket, which is the fact that even with the “best” of matches, 20% of that person’s qualities will be undesirable. It is comforting to know that tradeoffs are inevitable with any choice.

Applying Satisficing to Job Search and Hiring

This approach is especially effective in the job search context, where uncertainty and lack of transparency are the norm. Candidates rarely have full visibility into a role’s long-term growth potential, team dynamics, leadership quality, or even day-to-day responsibilities. Trying to “optimize” across multiple unknown variables often leads only to delay and frustration. Satisficing, by contrast, acknowledges these constraints and helps you make timely, confident decisions based on what you can know.

So, let’s apply this to the job search process. Satisficing would involve picking a standard—identifying the very few qualities that matter with a new position/employer—and looking for a role that meets those criteria. Even if a candidate interviews with only one firm, that is enough if the opportunity there meets the standard. And the candidate should not pick too many criteria because the number of opportunities rapidly shrinks to zero, the greater the number of must-have requirements the candidate applies.

For example, let’s assume a candidate wants to change practice areas, and that is their core focus. If they also require that the firm pay top-market compensation and offer a remote position, there may be no employers in the market that are a fit. And even assuming there were some, it may be impossible to secure a position at the very few satisfying all the criteria because practice area changes tend to be challenging moves, especially for senior attorneys and those with no relevant experience in the practice area to which they seek to switch.

This also applies to employers. Instead of needing to see comparator candidates, a firm that identifies the few key criteria that are critical in a potential candidate is ready to hire the first candidate who meets this standard. They don’t need to see more candidates if someone crosses the threshold. If clients still feel that seeing comparators is essential, it may provide them with some comfort to think of candidates seen in their historical searches as comparators.

I recently worked with an elite boutique law firm that has a niche practice. They wanted to find someone with specific experience within a few narrow class years. The candidate pool was very small. I only presented them with one candidate. She was strong, and the firm really liked her. But they were hesitant because they ideally preferred to see comparators. I explained the difficulty in doing so due to the narrow candidate pool, and I emphasized this approach of focusing on a standard and hiring if someone meets the threshold. She certainly met their standard, and they hired her.

So go forth and satisfice your way to a happier, less stressful life: in your job search or in hiring, mate, home, and investment selection, and the less consequential decisions you face every day.

Are you more of a “satisficer” or “maximizer” when it comes to job opportunities or hiring decisions?