That, in sum, is the process for choosing between possibilities for where to play and how to win. First, frame a choice. Second, explore possibilities to broaden the set of mutually exclusive possibilities. Third, for each possibility, ask, what would have to be true for this to be a great idea, using the logic flow framework to structure your thinking. Fourth, determine which of the conditions is the least likely to actually hold true. Fifth, design tests against those crucial barriers to choice. Six, conduct tests. Finally, in light of the outcome of the tests and how those outcomes stack up against predetermined standards of proof, select the best strategic choice possibility. This process broadens the possibilities up front and then systematically narrows the field. It leverages different perspectives to enrich the discussion, rather than bogging it down.

Tim Brown and Roger Martin provide a really nice description of how you might do this in their article “Design for Action.” In particular, the idea of throwing out multiple possible strategies and consciously debating them rather than incrementally working from strategies that are already in place is excellent.

What does this research tell us? First, that we love having options (“Whoa! Twenty-four jams?! Let’s check this out!!”), and, second, that we can’t deal with too many of them (“Um...so many...can’t decide; let’s go get some cheese”). In fact, most minds can choose effectively between only three to five options. If we’re faced with more than that, our ability to make a choice begins to wane—many more than that and our ability to choose completely freezes. It’s just the way our brains are wired. We’re attracted to having alternatives, and our modern culture almost idolizes options for their own sake. Get lots of options! Keep your options open! Don’t get locked in! We hear this sort of thinking all the time, and it seems to make sense, but there absolutely can be too much of this good option thing. When you toss in the Internet and the fact that we can now be made aware of seemingly every idea and activity on the planet after a subsecond Google search, most of us are suffering a pandemic attack of too many options.

The key is to reframe your idea of options by realizing that if you have too many options, you actually have none at all. If you get frozen in front of your daunting list of possibilities, then, in fact, you have no options. Remember that options only actually create value in your life when they are chosen and realized. We often teach our students that when an option grows up it becomes a choice. So, when you’ve got twenty-four jam options, you actually have zero options. Once you understand that, in choice making, twenty-four equals zero (and, boy, is it hard to believe when you love your options and worked so hard to find and come up with them), then you are free to take the next step: narrowing down.

If you’ve got a list of twelve options, cross out seven, then rewrite your list with just the remaining five on it, and go to step three. Most of our students and clients freak out at this idea.

“You can’t just cross options off!”

“What if I cross out the wrong one?”

We understand. But we’re not kidding—you just cross them off. Remember, if you’ve got too many options, you really don’t have any, so you’ve got nothing to lose. And you won’t cross off the wrong one. We call this the Pizza-Chinese Effect. We’ve all experienced it. Ed sticks his head in your office and says, “Hey, Paula—we’re going out for lunch. Wanna come?”

“Sure!”

“We’re choosing between pizza and Chinese food—got a preference?”

“Nah—whatever’s good!”

“Okay—we’re getting pizza.”

“No, wait. I want Chinese!”

In that situation, when you gave your first answer (“whatever’s good”), you thought you meant it. You didn’t know that you had a preference until an unwanted decision occurred as a fait accompli.

There are two safeguards against binary thinking. The first is this:

Safeguard: Imagine that one of the options is off the table. Take each of the options you’re considering, and one at a time, ask yourself, “What would I do if that were not possible?”

Suppose you’re considering what to do about a job where you don’t get along with a coworker. Binary thinking tells you to stay or leave. Imagining one option is off the table forces you to see the problem differently. Imagine that, for some reason, there is absolutely no way to quit your job: You must stay. Now you are forced to see things through a new lens. What could you do to make going to work every day more enjoyable, despite the problem with your coworker? What could you do to remain at your job and still move closer to your goals? What could you do to give yourself more options in the future so you’re not stuck feeling powerless? Maybe staying means having a hard conversation with your boss and your coworker that you haven’t had yet. Maybe it means putting in for a transfer to another department. Maybe it means asking your boss if you can work remotely.