Reducing the options: what research allows us to conclude
In Lausanne, managers in medtech, higher education, international sports organisations and scale-ups across the Lake Geneva region regularly have to choose between competing solutions. The precise management question is this: does reducing the number of options presented for a decision make choosing easier without excluding a relevant solution?
What the literature establishes
Sheena S. Iyengar and Mark R. Lepper (2000, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) showed across several experiments that a large assortment could attract more interest while being less likely to lead to a choice than a smaller one. Their findings concern purchasing, task engagement and satisfaction, depending on the experiment. They establish that choice overload can occur, not that there is a universal relationship between the number of options and decision difficulty.
What pooling the studies adds
Benjamin Scheibehenne, Rainer Greifeneder and Peter M. Todd (2010, Journal of Consumer Research) examined this effect in a meta-analysis. The average effect was virtually zero, with substantial variation between studies. This synthesis does not deny the difficulties associated with some assortments: it shows that those difficulties do not systematically follow from assortment size.
The hasty conclusion
One might conclude that a committee should always receive a shortlist. That would confuse a sometimes useful intervention with a general rule, overlooking the fact that whoever screens the options is already shaping the decision. A shortlist can make comparisons easier while excluding a relevant solution: making a choice easier and improving its quality are distinct objectives. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these data do not settle
The situations studied do not directly reproduce a regulatory decision in medtech, the selection of a university partner or a decision within a sports organisation. These studies provide neither an optimal number of options for an executive committee nor evidence that shortlisting improves strategic outcomes. In practice, exclusion criteria therefore need to be documented rather than treating a brief decision paper as an indicator of quality.
A practical check in Lausanne
As part of SHR's decision-making programme, a proposed exercise for a Lausanne team would be to track comparable recurring decisions for four weeks, alternating between a full set of options and a shortlist based on written criteria, while retaining access to excluded options. For each format, calculate the proportion of decisions deferred out of those considered, and record every instance in which an excluded option is reintroduced. This local check would not, on its own, establish a causal effect, but would show whether shortlisting is accompanied by fewer deferrals or regularly requires reopening the choice. To go further: explore the Decision-making training in Lausanne, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Decision-making in Lausanne
- decision-making
- Lausanne
- research
- training lausanne