Tradeoff-First Problem Solving
Choose the best cost-benefit balance instead of promising a perfect fix
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 96%
Tradeoff-First Problem Solving begins from the premise that difficult problems persist because every serious option carries costs. Define the problem narrowly, list feasible options including doing nothing, and map the benefits, harms and affected groups for each. Then search for a practical lever that improves the balance without pretending to eliminate every downside. Kisin contrasts this approach with ideological argument and uses abortion policy in Hungary as an example, claiming that family incentives reduced abortions without a ban. That empirical claim would need independent verification before policy use; the reusable mechanism is to seek indirect interventions that advance a shared outcome while reducing the conflict or cost attached to direct action.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01Complex problems rarely have cost-free solutions
- 02Every option should reveal who bears its costs
- 03A practical indirect route can outperform ideological confrontation
- 04The goal is a better tradeoff, not perfection
How to run it
- 1
Bound the problem
State the outcome, affected population and time horizon precisely enough to evaluate options.
Watch out A vague crisis frame makes every cost look justified.
- 2
Generate real options
Include direct action, indirect action and inaction rather than comparing a favored plan with a caricature.
Pro tip Ask what changes the incentives around the problem.
- 3
Expose the tradeoffs
For every option, identify expected gains, losses, uncertainty and who bears each consequence.
Watch out Do not hide a cost by moving it to another group or country.
- 4
Choose the balance
Select the option with the most defensible overall balance while preserving hard boundaries.
Pro tip Explain which downside you are knowingly accepting.
- 5
Measure and revise
Track intended and unintended effects, then revise when the observed tradeoff differs from the forecast.
Watch out A pragmatic label does not remove the need for evidence.
In the wild
Illustrative example: a software company rejects both ignoring churn and making cancellation deliberately difficult. It compares discounts, onboarding support and contract friction, including revenue, support cost and customer trust. It pilots better onboarding because it addresses the cause without imposing the largest customer cost.
→ The company chooses an explicit, measurable tradeoff rather than a superficially perfect fix.
Common mistakes
Pretending one variable is everything
Optimizing one outcome while ignoring all others merely conceals the tradeoff.
Calling compromise evidence
A middle position is not automatically effective; outcomes still need measurement.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for complex public, business or personal choices with competing legitimate values.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when an option violates a non-negotiable legal or ethical boundary.
From the transcript
“You can't solve every problem. You can choose which tradeoff you get.”
“Most of the things that we argue about are unsolved because they're difficult to solve.”
From the episode
The Anti-Woke Expert: “USA & UK Are Brainwashed!”