A500.4.3.RB_CavaliereMike

I can’t remember where I heard it first, but there’s a saying that has stuck with me through the years that always seems to pop up in my head when things get overthought, over-“strategized,” or overly politicized at work: “A camel is a horse designed by committee.”

I love that saying, not only because it’s funny but because it communicates so much truth about efficiency, productivity and the value/purity of a good idea in the workplace. I’m sure there are a lot of other clichés that communicate the same idea — “Too many cooks in the kitchen” comes to mind — but the sentiment remains the same: At a certain point, the more people contributing to the decision-making process, the worse the decision will become.

Now, look, a camel’s fine. They do well in rough climates. They’ve advertised cigarettes and made a fortune. They have a hump — which is practical but, you know, still a hump. A camel gets the job done, but it’s just not a horse, which is streamlined and simple. The horse was built for speed and strength — it’s the sports car of the animal kingdom. Sure, without a hump it has to drink water more frequently than the camel does, but that’s okay. It’s not trying to be a sports car and a family van. It’s just a horse, and it is its simplicity that makes it beautiful.

All of that is to say that I absolutely agree with Sheena Iyengar on the art of choosing. It is one of our primary beliefs as Americans that choice is essential to our life experience and, in a lot of ways, the very thing that defines us. Whether it comes to how we see choice (differentiating different types of sodas from different types of drinks) or how our choices are made (a doctor deciding whether or not to “pull the plug” or leaving it to us), the research shows that choice is infinitely more complicated than we often give it credit.

Simply scrolling through Netflix to find something to watch is a simple way to prove just how easily an overabundance of choices can blind us. A routine trip down what my wife and I call “the Netflix Vortex” — that endless scrolling through titles in an attempt to find the perfect one, only to give up and watch yet another episode of “House Hunters” — proves that shortening the list of options would almost definitely be beneficial. But who would give up all those extra titles? Definitely not me. That conundrum, in itself, illustrates how complicated our relationship with choice can be.

It’s no different in the workplace, either. Iyengar’s comments can be projected onto the camel-horse comparison. Fewer options mean deeper consideration of each, and that can lead to better choices and better results. An overabundance of choices, however, results in noise and a desire to keep everyone happy and involved. Every idea is both valued and glazed over at the same time, included but not made into a specialty. It results in compromise at the cost, sometimes, of common sense.

“But what if the horse had a longer neck for grazing?"

“Yeah, and let’s add some bulk for extra storage.”

“How about fur? I like fur.”

“You want a hump? You got it!"