Look at the options you've brought to the table for your current decision. If you're a reasonably disciplined decision maker, you've brought several. You want to ensure you've thought this through and weighed it from several angles. But if we are being completely honest, at least one of those options isn’t a serious contender. It’s an inferior choice, a "filler option" thrown in just to show due diligence or to make your preferred path look better by comparison.

If you've been following me a while, you know I am a big fan of having three options. It's a critical step in making better decisions. But that third option can't be a throwaway. If it's clearly inferior, it isn't harmless. It is a psychological trap that quietly hijacks your objective logic, skews your attribute ratings, and completely compromises your team's definition of "good enough" on the metrics that matter most.

Irrelevant Alternatives and the Decoy Effect

In decision science, there is a fundamental axiom known as the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). It dictates that if you prefer Option A over Option B, introducing a third, inferior Option C should not change your preference. Your choices should be transitive: if A > B, then adding an irrelevant C shouldn't suddenly warp the relationship between A and B.

But human brains do not operate like mathematical algorithms. In real-world dynamics, choices actively impact the frame. When you introduce an inferior option, you trigger what psychologists call Asymmetric Dominance—the Decoy Effect.

Instead of evaluating Option A and Option B strictly against your baseline success criteria, your brain subconsciously shifts to a relative comparison. Because Option B is clearly better than the inferior decoy (Option C), Option B suddenly looks hyper-attractive. The presence of the irrelevant alternative skews how we rate specific attributes like cost, speed, or risk. It lowers the bar, dragging your standard of excellence down to meet the compromised frame.

Marketers know this. It is why that third, most expensive option is often designed to be very enticing along the attribute that is missing from the lowest-priced option. It makes the low-priced option look more inferior, increasing the likelihood that we choose the middle option.

Using a structured process like my Decision Canvas helps, because it puts the attributes before the options. But life is never that clean, nor that linear.

What can we do about it?

Exceptional decision-makers protect the integrity of their choices by enforcing a strict Axiom Filter during the DISCERN phase of the Decision Canvas:

• Kill the Decoys Early: If an option is structurally inferior or unviable, it is banned from the evaluation room immediately. Keeping it on the table as a "benchmark" only manipulates your data.
• Rate Attributes Against Criteria, Not Alternatives: You do not measure an option's quality by comparing it to a worse option. You measure it strictly against your pre-defined criteria thresholds.
• Maintain Transitivity: If your strategy ranked A over B on Tuesday, and a new wildcard option (C) is introduced on Thursday, you do not re-litigate A vs. B. You evaluate C independently against your criteria.

👥 If you lead a team:

Stop allowing your staff to present "three options" when two of them are just filler designed to make their favorite look like the only logical choice. Demand that every single pathway brought to the boardroom be a viable, fully-resourced contender that could standalone as a win.

⚡ If you’re running solo:

Beware of benchmarking your current progress against your worst-case scenarios. Squeezing out a mediocre victory just because it looks better than a complete failure isn't high standards; it’s an expensive distraction caused by overthinking relative data instead of tracking absolute execution.

✝️ If you’re navigating this with faith:

We often treat compliance with a low baseline as our ultimate goal, comparing ourselves to the "inferior alternatives" of cultural compromise. True alignment isn't relative. Let your Yes be an uncompromised Yes to the precise standard of stewardship you've been assigned, without looking sideways to justify a lower bar.

An extra thought for those guided by faith...

To this point we've focused on inferior alternatives, but let’s get completely honest about how the decoy effect paralyzes your spiritual discernment. When you are caught between Option A and Option B, the human brain craves an escape from the tension of the choice. So, what do we do? We introduce a mythical Option C: The Perfect Plan.

In decision science, this mythical "perfect alternative" acts as the ultimate psychological decoy, but with a lethal twist. Because Option C is an unviable illusion, it makes the real, messy, immediate realities of Options A and B look inferior by comparison. You can't break the tie between A and B because they don't match the pristine attributes of a plan that doesn't exist.

For those walking by faith, this can feel like stewardship. God rarely hands us a map with only one single 'correct' coordinate; He gives us a compass of values and constraints and invites us to step forward. Kill the decoy of the "perfect plan," trust the baseline criteria you’ve been given, and make the call.

Your action: play it out. What if you never choose any option? Because that is where you are headed. No perfect option will come forward. No option where you get the perfect job and the perfect family and the perfect spiritual life. Look at the option of staying in limbo. Would God view that as good stewardship? Because that is the reality of waiting on perfect.

This isn't just about escaping the paralysis. It also protects your commitment, your energy, to pursue the option once you've chosen. Learn to ignore the perfect (or inferior) option completely, and you've unlocked a decision-making skill that can power everything. You won't need perfect plans.

Want the full framework?

Download the free Decision Canvas—it walks you through ANCHOR → DISCERN → DECIDE for any decision.

✅ Action Step This Week

Take that one big decision you have been wrestling with.

Review the active choices or project proposals currently on your desk. Identify the "filler choice" or the mythical "perfect scenario" that you are using to delay action.

Draw a line through it right now. Force yourself or your team to spend the next 48 hours evaluating only the remaining, realistic pathways strictly against your absolute baseline constraints.

When you stop looking sideways at what is inferior, you finally find the clarity to look up at what is essential.

That's it for this week. May this week’s decisions find you anchored, wise, and courageously faithful.

Andy

1445 Woodmont Lane NW #713, Atlanta, GA 30318
​Unsubscribe · Preferences​