How you handle perfectionism

Perfectionism can be the enemy of actually finishing something and releasing it to the public. In a way, it’s the enemy of velocity… which can be a problem when speed is of the essence (being first to market, making a deadline, etc.).

I worked with design engineers years ago who absolutely could not release a product until it was “perfect.” Fifteen years after the start of the project, it was still a work in progress. There comes a point when you have to accept that perfection can come later. That perfection is a work in progress. That it’s okay to release a v.1.0 today and work on v.1.1, v.1.2, etc. later.

Perfection as a process only works when it doesn’t become an obstacle… or an excuse.

I would always prefer for everything to be perfect. Unfortunately, I’m also a pragmatist as well. I find the main struggle for me is judging the right balance between the two. It’s probably best to explain this from a business and personal perspective.

I’ve always been critical of ‘good enough’ solutions. In fact, sometimes the Australian market appears that way to me. Instead of truly innovating or delivering new solutions, we get / take what’s already been conceived, often taking the same steps and time frames that other markets have taken much earlier. I see this as ‘good enough’ and not making improvements to something that we’ve already seen in practice. Foxtel would be my main example to illustrate this point.

Personally, I hate to settle for ‘good enough’. However, sometimes time, money or choice pressures limit me to doing so. That doesn’t make it right and sometimes it’s an excuse, but having a goal of perfectionism and falling short is much better than a goal of ‘good enough’ and not quite achieveing it.

Probably summed up by the over-used phrase, “shoot for the stars and you might still hit the moon.”

I wouldn’t say I struggle with perfectionism, but the discussion has made me realize that I “cope” by re-defining what is perfect in order to meet a deadline.

Example:
If I am aiming to have a 3-course dinner on the table for guests at 7pm, and at 6:30pm I have only really prepared 2-courses, then I will run with 2-courses for 7pm (rather than deliver 3-courses at 7:25pm).

My view of perfectionism is therefore about ‘delivery on time’.

By contrast, in the same scenario, my wife will opt for the 3-courses delivered late.

Her view of perfectionism is ‘delivery in full’

Robert

Really good discussion here! Robin, in response to your question to me, I think you hit the matter on the head by mentioning self-worth.

To me, the dark side of perfectionism is fear based. I see it used as an excuse for procrastination: “Oh, I can’t let anyone see this until it’s perfect.” Or I see it used to justify inaction: “I just can’t get this perfect, so I won’t even try.” Or I see it used as Luke described, as the foundation for self-destructive behaviors: “If I don’t get this perfect, people won’t accept me.”

All of those are based on fear of rejection. The kind of good perfectionism you describe focuses not on self, but on results. Perfectionism, in its good sense, has to be ready to accept results that, ironically, are less than perfect.

Robert’s dinner preparation adjusts to reality by accepting fewer courses than were originally planned. His wife’s dinner preparation adjusts to reality by accepting a delay in serving time. In both cases, they focus on making the end RESULTS as good as they can.

And I think they likely would take away from the experience some ideas of how to improve the next time. They enjoy what they accomplished and use the setbacks to make the next time even better.

The dark side of perfectionism would try to present the full three courses at the appointed time. That kind of perfectionist considers nothing more than the fear of losing face if everything is not exactly as planned.

Unfortunately, that leads to shoddy work. The dinner gets done poorly and probably a little late anyway. Then the cook spends the whole meal either apologizing or eying the guests for any sign of displeasure.

The dark type of perfectionist finds no enjoyment in what they accomplished and learns nothing that can lead to future improvement because they are totally focused on themselves.

I think the key to good perfectionism is, as you said, Robin, to focus on the obtaining the best results possible, even if they’re not “perfect” this time around. Good perfectionism can view any experience as part of a learning process that leads to ever improving results.

A fine line exists between the two. What separates Chaplin, for example, from a hack director who spends endless hours wasting everybody else’s time in search for a “perfect” shot that doesn’t exist? I’ve known of directors who felt convinced that they were showing creative genius by actions that were nothing more than wasting everybody’s time.

Striving for perfection in a good way has to be divorced from self-worth. It has to focus on results. And it has to be willing to see each effort as a step on the journey to perfection instead of as this one effort as needing to lead to the final destination. Seeking perfection has to be a habit, not a one-time shot.

“‘Is nature obsessed with perfection? Is “fittest” synonymous with “perfect” in the context of survival?’”

Interesting question. From my perspective, “bad” perfectionism starts from seeking a goal that is likely unattainable. It then refuses to adapt to the situation.

Most people here seem to define “good” perfectionism as a quest for positive results. That quest remains flexible in pursuit of whatever positive results best fit the situation.

In that regard, I see “survival” as falling into the “good” perfectionism. Its whole approach involves seeking flexible end results instead of preconceived ones that might turn out to be totally unsuitable for the actual situation as it develops.

“Survival” succeeds because it remains flexible. “Survival” succeeds because each result is a steppingstone to ongoing improvement instead of a futile attempt to reach a final destination.

Interesting direction this is going with getting into the idea of striving to conform to an external, preestablished standard, such as with a gymnast or a machinist of precision equipment.

My main area of interest in the subject has always been with the way the individual approaches the task at hand.

For example, neither the gymnast nor the machinist who approaches the task with an attitude of “bad” perfectionism will get very far. They will focus on fear of mistakes that diverge from the external standard they are trying to match. And in focusing on possible mistakes, they will make them.

The outstanding gymnast or machinist, on the other hand, succeeds because they focus on getting the results rather than on their fear that they won’t get the results expected of them. That frees them to excel, even though the situation doesn’t allow them the flexibility to redefine what is acceptable.

You might say that the victim of “bad” perfectionistic thinking replaces the preestablished standard with their own, even higher standard. Agonizing over every minor glitch along the way overrules any more constructive approaches that would allow them to fix the current effort and improve future results. They settle for a dead end instead of a deeper exploration.

The “bad perfectionist” gymnast gives up before they can achieve their actual potential because they get discouraged over not being “perfect” immediately. The “bad perfectionist” machinist repeats mistakes and eventually gets fired because they’re too busy trying to make excuses for mistakes rather than learning from them.

Meanwhile, “good perfectionist” gymnasts and machinists become masters of their crafts because they focus on what it takes to excel rather than focusing on their mistakes.