The Perfection Premium

I will bet (even though I'm not the gambling type) that if you walk into just about any bowling alley in the United States, there will be a sign or plaque honoring the last individual to bowl a perfect game.  The plaque will have the bowler's name and the date on which he or she scored 300 points (which, if you bowl, is a perfect game - basically, it's when you bowl 12 strikes in a row during a single game).  

Perfection can be many things.  All of the students in my wife's classroom want to score a 100% on their test.  Golfers dream of hitting a hole in one.  A few years ago, there was a story in the local newspaper about a group of 17 high school students, all from the same high school, who scored a perfect score of 36 on the ACT college admissions examination.  Musicians practice hard so that they can play an entire song without any mistakes.  Hospitals want to eliminate hospital-acquired infections and other safety events with a goal of zero patient harm.  Our society is absolutely obsessed with perfection.  

As a matter of fact, we are so obsessed with perfection, that cognitive psychologists have defined something known as the perfection premium.  Simply put, people categorize both individuals and products on whether or not they are perfect, or just near-perfect, and they overexagerrate the differences between these categories because of the perfection premium.  Using the ACT example above, the general population would rate an individual who scores a 36 (i.e., a perfect score) on the ACT as much more intelligent than an individual who scores just a 35 (i.e., just below a perfect score). 

Mathew Isaac and Katie Spangenberg published a group of studies last year in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science that beautifully illustrated the perfection premium.  In the first study, subjects were asked to choose between two types of unsweetened baking chocolate for their dessert recipe.  Chocolate bar B was slightly more expensive (by only 20 cents) than chocolate bar A, but B always contained 1% more of pure ingredients.  Subjects were randomly assigned to choose between 100% and 99%, 99% and 98%, or 98% and 97%.  Subjects almost always chose the more expensive bar with greater purity.  Consistent with the premium paradox, 68% of the subjects chose bar B when it was 100% pure, compared to 51% who selected bar B when it was just near perfect (99% or 98% pure).  

Isaac and Spangenberg found similar results when the studies involved ACT scores, Merino wool socks, or test scores - in all three studies, subjects showed a greater preference for things that were perfect (ACT score of 36, 100% pure Merino wool, or 100% score on a test) than when they were just close to perfect (in fact, 1 point below perfection).  Li and Chapman showed similar results in their study in which subjects showed a greater preference for a vaccine with 100% efficacy versus ones that were 95% effective (they called it the 100% effect, but it is very similar to what Kahneman and Tversky called the certainty effect; see also the so-called Allais paradox).

I have to admit, 100% of something sounds a lot better than 99% of something, right?  We all like perfection.  We all strive for perfection.  The irony here is that achieving perfection is next to impossible (notice that I did NOT say that the chance of achieving perfection is absolutely zero, which is the perfection premium in reverse).  Some would argue that if we always aim for perfection, we will always be disappointed ("Perfection is the enemy of good" right?).  The American author (and at least recently, the owner of a bookshop called The Painted Porch), Ryan Holiday said, "Perfectionism rarely begets perfection, or satisfaction - only disappointment."

If you've ever spent time reading a book about goal-setting, you've likely come across a concept known as "SMART" goals.  "SMART" is an acronym that helps individuals set proper goals:

S = Specific:  You want to define your goal in such a way that you can explain it easily to someone else, which can usually be achieved when the goal is focused on a specific area.  For example, "I want to get better at golf" is not very specific.  Setting a goal to improve your golf handicap by 5 strokes is much more specific.

M = Measurable:  You need to know whether or not you've achieved your goal, which is easier when it is a goal that can be measured.  For example, a common hospital goal is to reduce the number of central line infections; central line infections are easily measured.

A = Actionable: You want to set a goal for something that is within your span of control.  For example, as much as I would love to see it, I should not set a goal to have the Cubs win the World Series next year.  I've seen some articles that substitutes "Achievable" here, which is slightly different (see my next point below).

R = Relevant: Again, you want to set a goal that is relevant or important to you.  I've seen some articles that use "Realistic" here (particularly when A = Actionable, as opposed to "Achievable").  I think that as long as "Achievable" or "Realistic" (not both) is used, the goal can still be a SMART goal.  The point here is that, while it is good to set so-called stretch goals, you still have to make sure that the goal will not be impossible to achieve (otherwise, you end up with disappointment and disillusionment).

T = Time-bound: Goals should be time-limited.  In other words, give yourself a deadline.  For example, "I will improve my golf handicap by 5 strokes within 6 months."

The legendary NFL football coach, Vince Lombardi, once said, "Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."  I think Coach was really trying to say is that rather than focusing on perfection, we should strive for continuous improvement.  Always get better.  Excellence, not perfection, is the goal.