As a startup leader, you've likely found yourself stuck between two unappealing options, feeling like no matter what you choose, something critical will be lost. Welcome to the sucker's choice.
The sucker's choice is a cognitive trap that presents a false dichotomy, making you feel like you must choose between your values and your goals. But it's not the only mental snare you might encounter when solving problems. The knower trap can stifle a culture of innovation by discouraging new or unconventional ideas. And the victim trap can impede execution by making people more focused on avoiding blame than solving problems.
Falling into the trap of the sucker's choice undermines long-term sustainability—we sacrifice integrity for short-term wins, which erodes trust. But with the right mindset, and the right practices, you can often find a third path that honors both business outcomes and organizational values. You can "play to win with honor."
Leadership development expert Chris Holmberg, of Middle Path Consulting, introduced me to these concepts. He proposes that when, collectively, a workforce or team tends to fall into any of these traps it can have a significant and detrimental impacts to the culture.
Recognizing the Trap
The sucker's choice thrives on urgency and oversimplification, pushing binary thinking. We think to ourselves, "I must choose...", for example, profits or sustainability, speed or quality, innovation or stability, etc.
Imagine a startup founder facing pressure to cut costs. The sucker's choice whispers, "We must slash the workforce or run out of cash." It feels like a no-win situation, but this thinking limits creativity. Instead, the founder could explore alternatives like renegotiating contracts, streamlining processes, or offering flexible work options to reduce costs while retaining talent.
We fall for the sucker's choice due to urgency, fear of failure, and cognitive bias. Binary thinking is easy; nuanced solutions are harder. For leaders, it can feel like business goals and values are mutually exclusive. But this belief creates the trap.
Binary thinking is easy; nuanced solutions are harder.
The Power of Integrative Thinking
Escaping requires integrative thinking—holding competing priorities and creatively reconciling them. Not compromise, but reframing: Instead of "What should we prioritize, scaling or quality?" ask "How can we scale while upholding quality?" This shift opens solutions that honor both.
Real-World Examples
1. Scaling Without Sacrificing Quality
The executive team leading an e-commerce startup felt pressured to expand rapidly to capitalize on market demand, but worried that moving too quickly would lead to quality issues and disappointed customers. The values at play were growth vs. excellence.
Their solution? They implemented a phased rollout strategy. By launching in select markets first and rigorously testing their processes and systems, they were able to identify and address potential quality problems early. This allowed them to scale more systematically to new markets while maintaining high product and service standards. The staged approach balanced the need for growth with the commitment to excellence.
2. Cutting Costs Without Losing Talent
A manufacturing startup was facing financial pressures and the COO needed to significantly reduce expenses, but didn't want to lose key talent that would be critical for future innovation and growth. The values in conflict were financial health vs. employee welfare.
Instead of immediately resorting to layoffs, they took a multi-pronged approach. First, they explored implementing energy-efficient technologies in their production process which could lead to substantial cost savings. They also renegotiated contracts with suppliers for better terms. By reducing costs in other areas, they were able to preserve the workforce and the talent needed to drive the company forward, while still improving the financial picture.
3. Balancing Team Efficiency and Morale
A manager's team was overburdened and exhausted but also faced a critical, immovable deadline for an important client deliverable. Pushing harder risked burnout and turnover, but missing the target could damage the company's reputation and customer relationship. The values in conflict: meeting commitments vs. sustainable workload.
The manager's solution involved a combination of tactics. She worked with the team to ruthlessly prioritize tasks, putting non-essential work on hold. She re-balanced workloads to tap into the capacity of underutilized team members. Throughout, she communicated transparently about the situation, acknowledged the challenges, and expressed appreciation. This enabled the team to meet the deadline while still feeling supported.
4. Implementing Change
A manager rolling out a new CRM system felt she had to choose between forcing compliance with the new process and abandoning the initiative if staff resisted the change. The values at play: consistency vs. autonomy.
By involving the team in adapting the CRM implementation and proactively seeking their input, the manager was able to build buy-in. She struck a balance between explaining the non-negotiables that were key to realizing the benefits, while still giving them some flexibility in how they used the system day-to-day. This collaborative approach led to greater adoption while still ensuring the change aligned with overarching goals.
5. Navigating Conflict
A team lead was faced with an escalating conflict between two team members with competing priorities. One felt the other was blocking their progress, while the other felt their valid concerns were not being heard. The lead felt pressure to take sides to resolve the issue quickly, but worried that would alienate someone and undermine psychological safety. The values in conflict: decisiveness vs. fairness.
Instead of avoiding the issue or forcing a unilateral decision, the lead facilitated a structured discussion with clear ground rules that allowed both parties to share their perspectives candidly but respectfully. By digging into each person's underlying interests and concerns, the lead helped them find a mutually agreeable solution that addressed the root causes of the conflict. This approach took more time but resulted in better alignment, understanding, and trust on the team.
Sadly, Enron, Wells Fargo, and Theranos have exemplified ignoring this trap, choosing "winning" over acting with integrity. Patagonia, Ben & Jerry's, and REI on the other hand have consistently demonstrated balancing both.
Four Steps to Overcome the Sucker's Choice
Pause and reflect – Gather data, identify root causes, clarify ideal outcomes. (In the S-Loop framework, this is sensing and seeking.)
Reframe – Shift from "What should we do?" to "What could we do?"
Question assumptions – Is it really either/or? What third paths exist?
Collaborate – Diverse perspectives often reveal opportunities and offer new ideas for integrating priorities.
"The faster the world gets, the more we need to pause." –Dov Seidman, author of How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything
Practice Matters
Avoiding the sucker's choice takes practice. Our Leadership and the Middle Path workshop, designed by Chris Holmberg of Middle Path Consulting, helps startup leaders develop skills to recognize and escape it.
Are you ready to transform your approach to tough decisions? Join me and learn how to:
Avoid cognitive traps
Reframe problems for integrative solutions
Build values-driven decision-making habits
Lead in a way that integrates business outcomes with values for long-term growth. Check it out, sign up, and start winning with integrity.
A Last Word
I'll give the last word here to Dov Seidman. He proposes that "the source of competitive advantage has shifted to behavior—how we do what we do. ... If you go into the dictionary [you'll find the words] out-compete, out-smart, and out-perform... [They are] part of common vernacular. How come the word out-behave is not in the dictionary? ... We don't usually associate behavior with how we compete and win and create value. ... We are entering a world where out-behaving the competition—through how we lead, govern, and innovate—will become the source of competitive advantage."
For Further Learning
The Most Dangerous Leadership Traps—and the 15-minute Daily Practice that Will Save You an interview w/ Chris Holmberg in First Round Review (article)
How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything by Dov Seidman (book)
The Opposable Mind by Roger L. Martin (book)
Solving Problems with Integrative Thinking, a conversation about strategic problem solving with Jennifer Riel from Rotman School of Management (HBR podcast)
The Fierce Urgency of How a Brown University talk by Dov Seidman (video)
Come join us for, and bring some of your managers to, our next Leadership and the Middle Path workshop and take your leadership skills to the next level.
Kommentare