Too much freedom causes analysis paralysis. That’s why Chipotle is successful, workaholics are happy, and retirement can be such a letdown.
As a person who manages creatives at an ad agency, I'm in a constant battle to provide my teams with the right amount of input. Too much information is paralyzing. But surprisingly, too much freedom is even worse. Give a creative team the world of potato chips to explore, and they freeze. Give them the word "crunchy" and watch them go. Creatives think they hate boxes, but it's in boxes that the creative process thrives.
And not just boxes: really small boxes. I use a technique you might call "Making the problem harder." I tell teams working on print ads to start by creating a billboard. If you have a TV campaign with a $300,000 production budget, try solving the problem for $10,000. Or do the whole spot only using type and sound effects.
Too much freedom can be bad for creatives, but there's significant evidence that it makes regular folks unhappy, too. I've long been fascinated by the arguments put forth by Barry Schwartz in "The Paradox of Choice." He says that when people have too many choices, especially in small matters, they freeze. And when they do choose, they're often left with buyer's remorse, convinced they missed a better opportunity.
It's not as counterintuitive as it sounds. The theory explains why you might be avoiding the smoothie place down the street with 98 flavors, not including the add-ons and power boosts. And in part why Chipotle is so successful. They present a limited range of options that makes choosing easy – just enough variation to make you feel it's your burrito but not so many that your head explodes.
But can the paradox of choice tell us something about the big issues in our lives? I think so.