The Three Options Trap
There are always more than three options.
Here’s how the game is played.
I describe three options.
The first option, of course, is Do Nothing. It’s traditional and, truth be known, it’s often a sound choice. As Secretary of State George Shultz once advised, “Don’t just do something. Stand there.” The idea that doing something, anything, is always better than doing nothing is highly flawed but it has the appeal of something different.
The third option is the polar opposite of the first option. It is Do Something Big. This has serious appeal. Big is bold. Big is brave. Unfortunately, Big can also be dumb and costly.
Now the game really begins to heat up with the second option which is tucked right in-between the two opposites. The second option is Something In-Between. Hmm. Seems moderate and reasonable. It’s not extreme like the others. Appears to be a safe choice, if only by default.
This game is an art form in Washington, D.C.
A Defense Department wag once spoofed the State Department by saying that America’s diplomats always present three options:
1. Surrender.
2. Diplomacy.
3. Nuclear war.
In fairness to the State Department, it was one of their own, Henry Kissinger, who set a rule that he would not accept any decision paper that only had three options. His argument was two-fold: He didn’t want to be manipulated into choosing the middle option and, in fact, there are always more than three options.
The additional options may not be brilliant, but often they are more creative. As you scour the horizon, near and far, for additional options you may find yourself discovering creative blends, completely new targets, new ground rules, different priorities, new allies, and a collection of other approaches that the brain-dead three option approach would have left unexplored.
That expansion of the thought process is, by itself, an advancement but when it is coupled with a willingness to abandon old assumptions, it can be liberating, and that alone can be crucial. It is more than a little frightening to consider how often organizations cling to plans that are dangerously outdated and costly simply because those plans were approved once upon a time, a bunch of money was plowed into them, and no one wants to launch the admittedly painful process of starting over.
Starting over often involves finger-pointing. Ouch!
Fortunately, history provides plenty of interesting and informative case studies that are worthy of periodic review. My favorites are:
1. The Bay of Pigs Invasion.
2. The Cuban Missile Crisis.
3. The Yalta Conference.
4. The Munich Agreement.
5. The Maginot Line.
6. The Invasion of Iraq.
Take the French decision to rely upon the Maginot Line to foil a German invasion in World War II. Very expensive. Slick. Regarded as impregnable. And heavily reliant on the assumption that the Germans would adopt the same offensive strategy they used in World War I.
Did the French give appropriate attention to what the Germans might do if Hitler decided to use a new strategy? Nope. In fact, any officers warning of that possibility soon found themselves on the fast track to ending their careers.
Anyone who has been alert to the workings of organizations knows how often the word goes out that Program Z is not to be questioned. Someone upstairs loves it. And the only acceptable conclusion is that Program Z will be a blazing success.
Until it blows up.
Go find some more options and question some assumptions.