Why High Achievers Need to Get Better at “Good Enough”
High performers often assume their standards are responsible for their success. And they may be right.
But high standards and perfectionism aren't the same thing. In fact, the ability to decide when something is good enough may be a critical skill for sustaining high performance.
Most of the people I work with are high achievers. They are leaders, directors, subject-matter experts, and managers. Within their organizations, they are often held to high standards—and they hold themselves to even higher ones.
They have worked hard to get where they are. They care deeply about the quality of their work. Excellence is often part of their professional identity.
After all, isn't excellence the standard?
At the same time, I hear a lot about stress from my clients. Overwhelm. Overwork. And the feeling that there simply aren't enough hours in the day.
This is especially true in mission-driven organizations, where leaders are often balancing a tremendous volume of work with limited resources. And when we talk about how to reduce the pressure, we frequently run into the same problem: there isn't much they can simply take off their plates.
But there may be another lever available.
We can get better at deciding when work is good enough.
And importantly, the research suggests that doing so doesn't require lowering our standards.
1. High standards aren't the problem
Research on perfectionism makes an important distinction between striving for excellence and worrying about whether our work is ever good enough.
A 2025 meta-analysis of workplace perfectionism distinguished between perfectionistic strivings—setting high standards and working toward ambitious goals—and perfectionistic concerns, which include fear of mistakes, self-criticism, and persistent doubts about the quality of one's work.
Both can lead people to work more. But the worrying, doubting, and second-guessing don't necessarily produce the same performance benefit.
That's an important distinction for high achievers.
The goal isn't to stop caring about quality. It's to loosen the connection between quality and flawlessness. You can hold yourself to a high standard, produce excellent work, and still decide at some point: This is enough.
2. Remember that every additional 5% has a cost
Imagine you're preparing an important presentation.
Going from 70% to 90% might dramatically improve it. You clarify the argument, strengthen the evidence, simplify the slides, and rehearse the delivery.
Going from 90% to 95% may make it better still. But what about 95% to 99%?
Maybe you spend another hour adjusting the wording on three slides. You change a font. Then change it back. You reread the presentation one more time. You continue tweaking a paragraph that was already clear.
The work may technically be better. But is it meaningfully better?
This is where high achievers can get caught. The question becomes Could I make this better? And the answer to that question is almost always yes.
A much better question is: Does making this better still matter?
Because every additional increment of effort has a cost. The extra 45 minutes spent polishing an already-good presentation is 45 minutes you aren't spending preparing for tomorrow's difficult conversation, thinking strategically, coaching an employee—or simply recovering.
3. Sometimes maximizing is exactly the right strategy
As a strengths coach, I know there can be tremendous value in maximizing an idea, product, or piece of work.
There are absolutely times when the difference between good and exceptional matters.
But psychology gives us another useful concept: satisficing.
The term, developed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon, combines the ideas of satisfy and suffice. Instead of searching indefinitely for the absolute best possible option, a satisficer establishes the criteria an outcome needs to meet—and stops searching when those criteria are satisfied.
In other words: What does good enough look like here?
That doesn't mean becoming a satisficer about everything. It means learning to distinguish between work that deserves maximizing and work that doesn't.
A major proposal? Maximize.
A consequential board presentation? Probably maximize.
An important strategy document? It may deserve several rounds of thoughtful revision.
The routine email you've already reread four times?vSend it.
4. Decide what “good enough” means before you start
One of the problems with perfectionism is that there is no natural finish line.
There is always another sentence you could improve. Another source you could consult. Another person you could ask. Another option you could consider.
So create the finish line yourself.
Before beginning a task, ask:
What does this particular piece of work need to accomplish?
Does it need to be:
Accurate?
Persuasive?
Thoughtful?
Polished?
Comprehensive?
Or simply completed?
Then decide what level of effort the task actually deserves.
You might even ask yourself:
Is this a 95% task, an 80% task, or a 60% task?
Not everything should be a 60% task. But not everything should be a 95% task either.
Save excellence for where excellence matters
Finally, many high achievers have internalized a powerful work ethic: I work hard. I do excellent work. That's who I am.
There is nothing wrong with that.
The problem comes when working hard becomes the default response to every task, regardless of how important that task actually is.
Leaders have finite resources. There are only so many hours in the day—and only so much attention, creativity, patience, and energy available within those hours.
That means deciding where not to pursue excellence can be just as important as deciding where to pursue it.
Over the next month, try a small experiment. Before you begin your next task, ask yourself two questions:
How good does this actually need to be? And then:
How will I know when it’s good enough?
Give yourself permission to stop when you reach that point.
Because “good enough” isn't about caring less about your work.
It's about being intentional about where you care the most.