The people who hold out for the best offer often get one. They're also the ones most likely to regret it.
Two offers are sitting in your inbox, and you have until Friday to answer. One pays a little more. The other has nicer people, you think, though three interviews is a thin basis for thinking it. You’ve built a spreadsheet. You’ve unbuilt it. And you keep refreshing the job board in case something better lands before the deadline forces your hand — because something better is always, in theory, one more search away.
The deadline isn’t really the problem. The problem is the quiet suspicion that whatever you choose, the right answer was the one you let go.
That feeling is one of the most common low-grade miseries of a job search, and it isn’t a personal failing. It’s the predictable result of how you’re framing the choice. There’s a name for the frame, and a name for the alternative, and a fair amount of evidence about which one leaves you better off.
In the 1950s the economist and psychologist Herbert Simon noticed that real people don’t choose the way textbook economics says they should. The textbook chooser is a maximiser: survey every option, score them all, select the single best. Simon pointed out that no actual human has the time or the information to do this for most decisions — so we don’t. Instead we satisfice, a word he built from “satisfy” and “suffice.” We set a bar for what counts as good enough, take the first option that clears it, and move on.
Decades later the psychologist Barry Schwartz turned that distinction into a way of describing people. Some of us lean maximiser — we want the best, and we can’t relax until we’re sure we’ve found it. Some of us lean satisficer — we want something that meets our needs, and once it does, we stop looking. Most people are a mix, and tilt one way or the other depending on the stakes. A job offer is about as high as the everyday stakes get, which is exactly why it brings the maximiser out in almost everyone.
Here’s the part that should give the maximiser pause.
In 2006 Schwartz, with Sheena Iyengar and Rachael Wells, followed a group of university students through the final year of their degree and out into their first jobs. They sorted the students by how strongly they maximised, and then tracked where they landed. The maximisers did, on paper, better: the jobs they accepted paid about 20 percent more than the ones the satisficers took.
And they felt worse about them. Through the search, the maximisers were more stressed, more anxious, more overwhelmed. After it — holding the higher-paying offer — they were less satisfied with the outcome and more weighed down by regret. They won the comparison and lost the experience of it.
The reason sits in the logic of maximising itself. To be sure you have the best, you’d have to have checked everything, and you never can. So the maximiser carries a permanent open question — was there something better I didn’t see? — into a job they’ve already taken. The satisficer closed that question the moment the bar was cleared, and got on with the actual work.
It would be easy to overreach here, so let me not. There’s a popular cousin of this idea — that more choice is simply bad, that a smaller menu always makes for happier choosers. That version is oversold. The famous study behind it, where a display of six jams outsold a display of twenty-four, is real, but when researchers pooled around fifty later experiments the average effect came out close to zero. Choice overload shows up in some conditions and vanishes in others.
So the claim worth keeping is the narrower, sturdier one. Not that choice is poison — it isn’t — but that the maximising stance, applied to a high-stakes, hard-to-compare decision like a job, reliably makes the chooser unhappier, even when it makes them objectively richer. That part holds up.
You can’t change your temperament by deciding to. But you can borrow the single move that makes a satisficer a satisficer: decide what “good enough” means before you look, not after.
Write the bar down first — the two or three things this job genuinely has to clear. A pay floor you can live on. Work you won’t dread. People you could stand to spend your week with. Whatever is actually load-bearing for you, named in advance, while you’re calm and no offer is on the table tilting your judgement. Then take the first real offer that clears all of them, and stop checking.
The shift is in the question you’re answering. Not is this the best job I could possibly get? — which has no answer, never closes, and follows you into the role. But does this clear the bar I set before I started? The first question keeps the search open forever. The second one ends it, on purpose — which is the only way searches ever actually end.
The best offer is the one you can stop thinking about.
— The Handbook Co.
First shared with our subscribers on Substack · read it there →
← All Field Notes