
A common misunderstanding of the phrase “good enough to try”
When a group wants to make a decision on a proposal, there are typically many opinions in the room. Mike is excited that the project is moving forward. Amar is appreciating the clarity. Basti is worried that itโll cost more money than projected. And so on.
Letโs say the preferences look more of less like this:

Soโฆ do we approve the proposal and start working? Or not? When can we go do things?
Whatโs consent decision-making?
Different decision-making methods would lead to different decisions in this scenario. (See a comparison of decision-making methods.). What would happen in consent decision-making?
- In consent, a proposal moves forward when no one on the team objects.
- One objects when thereโs a reason to believe that the proposal will negatively impact our capacity to achieve the aim of the group. (See more on consentย hereย and a comparison with consensusย here.)
Basically, this means that in consent, we move forward with a proposal when it doesnโt create harm. The slogan for that is good enough for now, safe enough to try.
In our above example, that means we have to change the question from Do you like this proposal? to Do you think this proposal will further or harm our aim?
We also have a created a binary system โ the answer is either yes, or no.

In this case, itโs no because Basti still objects. Learn more about integrating objections. The group would continue refining the proposal until it is in fact good enough. Since our goal is just to find a proposal that doesnโt do harm, thatโs typically relatively easy.
So is consent good enough?
Many people find consent decision-making liberating because itโs the work of the circle that determines our decisions, not peopleโs likes and dislikes. And itโs so much more pragmatic and faster than dealing with all the preferences.
Yet, others have a different response. They ask, wait, why would I settle for a proposal thatโs just good enough? Why wouldnโt we make good plans? Why wouldnโt we make AWESOME plans?!
And I agree.
The real question is whether an awesome plan makes an awesome project.
In a VUCA world, awesome doesnโt come from planning but from experimentation in the real world. Instead, we make good enough plans, and then we improve them!
No one knows everything. We try, we learn, we reflect together, we improve. Rinse, repeat. And again. Only experimentation helps us understand whatโs working, and thatโs why the bias towards trying something out and getting out of our head, and getting a show on the road is so important.
In good enough for now, all of that is in the innocent-looking phrase for now. It implies that weโre only determining for the moment whether something is good enough and that weโre improving our processes and that makes all the difference.
So, no, good enough is often not good enough to be awesome. Good enough for now, however, makes things awesome if we have our processes in place to learn and improve.

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.