I worked as a CPA in the insurance industry for 10 years— I served some of the largest, publicly-traded insurance companies in the world, some of the smallest- boutique self-insurance vehicles, and everything in between. In insurance, when you’re coming up with an estimate of how much you’re going to eventually pay out to settle claims, you consider frequency (car accidents happen all the time, but aren’t that expensive to settle) and severity (9/11 is still being litigated and will ultimately be settled for amounts larger than most nations’ GDP). So, the risk, when quantified, is the frequency of occurrences times the average magnitude of individual claims. Ideally you’d want low frequency, low magnitude, but then there would be no sense in insuring the risk. If you’re in the insurance business you’re managing one or the other for a specific risk. It’s a balancing act.
In preparing for an upcoming seminar I started thinking about nutrition solutions and insurance. A coach can recommend a 100% optimal solution that has a 0% chance of being fully adhered to. Ultimately, you’re telling your client, “I’ve got a very precise way for you to fail.” On the flip side you can tell your client, “just keep eating what you’re eating”. This alternative has a 100% chance of being followed, but a 0% chance of success in contributing to body recomposition and performance goals. The answer is somewhere in the middle, and in most situations I believe the greatest probability of success (likelihood of adherence to the plan x designed effectiveness of plan) lies in starting with a client’s current eating habits and making adjustments from there. So, it comes down to impactful decisions—what decisions make the most impact towards the goal? In a silo, recommending someone eat 4 Oreos, 15 almonds, and an apple for their daily snacks is an inferior solution to an apple, 15 almonds, and packet of oatmeal. However, with context, what if we’re talking about someone who currently eats 15 Oreos and 30 almonds every day? While the first option is sub-optimal, when analyzed along with the likelihood of adherence, it’s the superior solution. It also is the more joyful solution. The process should be enjoyed.
Just my thoughts on impactful decisions and joy.