Trade‑offs aren’t failure, they’re the strategy that creates excellence

Hard - Requires significant effort Recommended

We’re taught to avoid trade‑offs, to believe the right plan can make everyone happy. In reality, trying to keep all options open creates hidden losses: late projects, thin work, strained relationships. Strategy is the art of choosing what not to do so what you do shines. The useful question isn’t “How do I do both?” but “Which problem do I want to own?”

Consider a team deciding whether to offer first‑class service on a budget product. Saying yes pleases a few customers but explodes complexity and raises prices for everyone. Saying no disappoints some, but keeps costs low and operations simple. Both choices come with problems. The difference is that choosing deliberately lets you design around the chosen problem instead of tripping over dozens of accidental ones.

On a personal level, someone who tries to be the go‑to volunteer, top performer, and ever‑present friend often ends up late to everything and present for no one. Another person decides, for this quarter, to go big on a single project and to be home by 6:30. They still feel tugs, but the boundary simplifies a hundred micro‑decisions.

This is systems thinking. Every decision lives in a web of costs and benefits. By naming the costs up front, you reduce cognitive dissonance and lower the stress of guilt. You trade FOMO for focus. You also create clarity for others, which builds trust. Counterintuitively, constraints like one‑time rules increase creativity by narrowing the search space. You get better solutions because you stopped pretending you could do everything.

Put the two good options on paper and write the real problems each would create, then pick which set you’re willing to own for this season. Convert that choice into a single boundary that automates your next hundred decisions, and tell the people it affects so they can plan with you. Put a review date on the calendar to re‑decide with new information. This way you trade anxious maybe’s for a clear yes and a clean no. Try it for one decision this week.

What You'll Achieve

Reduce decision anxiety and guilt by explicitly choosing trade‑offs; make faster progress on a few meaningful goals and communicate boundaries that others respect.

Choose your ‘which problem’ explicitly

1

Name two competing goods

Write the two valuable options in conflict (e.g., speed vs. quality, family time vs. extra income). Avoid framing one as obviously bad.

2

List the problems for each path

For each option, write the specific problems you are choosing. Clarity beats guilt. Example: choosing speed risks rework; choosing quality risks missing a window.

3

Pick your preferred problem

Ask, “Which problem do I want to own this season?” Circle it. This reduces second‑guessing and resentful yeses.

4

Make one one‑time rule

Create a boundary that automates future choices (e.g., no Sunday work, or no custom features this quarter). Share it with stakeholders.

5

Schedule a review date

Decide when you’ll revisit the trade‑off with new data. Put it on the calendar to reduce anxiety now.

Reflection Questions

  • Which two good options are currently pulling me apart?
  • What problems am I willing to own for the next 90 days?
  • What one rule would make a hundred future decisions easy?
  • Who needs to hear my boundary so they can succeed with me?

Personalization Tips

  • • Startup: Commit to shipping a basic version in 8 weeks, owning the risk of post‑launch fixes rather than endless pre‑launch polish.
  • • Parenting: Choose to be home for dinner four nights a week, owning slower promotion speed for a season.
  • • Health: Prioritize 7.5 hours of sleep over 5 a.m. workouts, owning slower fitness gains but stronger focus at work.
Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less
← Back to Book

Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less

Greg McKeown 2014
Insight 3 of 8

Ready to Take Action?

Get the Mentorist app and turn insights like these into daily habits.