There is a saying that “good” is the enemy of “best”, which is probably a paraphrase and re-working of an older proverb most famously phrased by Voltaire - “Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien” i.e., “The best is the enemy of the good”. Whilst the first statement argues that being satisfied by something being “good enough”, prevents people from striving to achieve something that could be better, Voltaire’s statement is a  warning against perfectionism. Insisting on the “best” (or endlessly improving) can prevent people from delivering something that is “good enough”  to be useful and applicable. These two opposing ideas though when combined contain a truth i.e., there are times when you should not be satisfied with “good enough”, and times when good enough, is in fact good enough, and not a time when something “better” should be attempted. It is understanding when and in which situations these two different concepts should be applied that can enable us to be effective.

                There is rarely – I hesitate to use the word “never” – a perfect solution to violence. To search for one is waste of time, which gives an unaffordable advantage to the other party(s) involved. I remember being involved in an active shooter training where a group of us were placed in a room when an alert went off that there was an “active shooter” in the building. The goal was for us, as a team, to barricade the room to prevent anyone accessing it. There were two doors. When the alarm went off, myself and another team member immediately started to block the door nearest to us, assuming incorrectly that the other two people with us would be doing the same to the other door, nearest to them. As we were in mid-task piling things up against the door, the shooter burst in from the other door and peppered us with airsoft pellets. It turned out that the two other members had got caught up in a debate/discussion as to the best way to block the door, one arguing that a filing cabinet would make a more substantial barrier than a table, which ironically the other person argued would be quicker and easier to deploy. In this case Voltaire’s idea that “the best is the enemy of good” manifested itself clearly. The time to debate the merits of a heavy filing cabinet versus a table should have been thought about before the incident not during it. If the more portable table would have slowed down the shooter’s entry, allowing for more substantial items to have been added to the barricade as time permitted then the “effective”/good enough solution should have been enacted.

                Unfortunately, as studies have shown, a lot of perfectionism is driven not internally but externally, i.e., how our actions and behaviors are perceived by others. In many, many cases perfectionism is driven due to the perceptions of others. As a species we are inherently lazy. It’s one of the traits that has made us the dominant species on the planet. A dog would never invent the car. It enjoys running for the sake of running. Our sense of laziness coupled with a curiosity about the world, that most species lack, caused us to create machines that could carry us over long distances with little effort expended on our part. As a species our inherent goal is to expend as little effort on a task as possible. However, when we put in a social factor, that changes. When we, consciously or unconsciously, seek the approval and recognition of others; we end up seeking perfection to avoid judgment. This sees us put an extra effort into the things we do as we try to be perfect. In most cases this is something that is positive and causes productive “competition” that benefits everyone, however when it comes to survival it can be detrimental.

                I have written before about how children – overall - have a better chance of surviving in a wilderness disaster than an adult e.g., a child lost in the woods is more likely to survive than an adult. Adults have difficulty admitting they are lost. It’s something that shouldn’t occur and signals that they have lost control of what is happening to them. Such things shouldn’t happen in a perfect world. This often causes adults to panic and run towards whatever is over the horizon, rather than simply accept that they are lost. Young children, however, don’t feel this type of judgment and accept their situation. When they’re tired they rest, when they’re hungry they eat, when they’re thirsty they drink etc. All of these things improve their survival chances. They aren’t driven by social judgment and perfection, they simply do what is necessary.

                When I first started working in door security, coming from a competitive Judo background, I erroneously and naively believed that I would easily be able to replicate my success on the mats and in competition to real-life violence. It’s actually the main reason why I put myself forward to do door security; I thought it would be easy money – and as a poor student I was always looking for easy money. As a Judoka I trained for perfection, and the rules of competition were set up to encourage that i.e., the rules were designed – as with any combat sport - to demonstrate the beauty of the art. However, when it came to dealing with real-life violence, “good enough”, was usually all you could hope for. Striving for “best”/perfection was a waste of time.

The chaos and mayhem of real-life violence coupled with the environments in which it is/was experienced meant that the idea/concept of perfectionism was a hindrance rather than an asset. I remember an occasion where I had a very hard time controlling an unruly punter and after a lot of effort managed to throw him and then control him on the ground. After he was eventually thrown out and I returned exhausted to my position, working with a more experienced doorman who had witnessed the confrontation, he turned to me and said, “Why didn’t you just poke him in the eye when you had the chance?” For me, throwing was the perfect answer to violence, when really and in all honesty, poking him in the eye would have been good enough.