On this page
At the project desk, Olek shows Amira a finished app screen.
— Done. We can close this.
— Not yet. There are still three things to fix.
Olek sees a version that is good enough for its purpose. Amira sees three known flaws that she finds hard to knowingly leave in something labeled “done”.
How does Empatyzer help teams define what “done” means?
Empatyzer helps you see that further revisions may improve quality or delay delivery. It also allows you to see how to agree together what "done" means.
Features that can help:
- How you work: Shows your natural way of acting, pace, need for closure and reaction to quality standards, which helps you understand your own side of the "It's already good" situation.
- Comparison: Compares your preferences in areas such as quality standard, pace of completion and the definition of "done", making it easier to separate the difference in style from ill intent in the "This is already good" situation.
- Talk to Em about a specific person: It helps practice a conversation with a selected person in the situation of "It's already good" and check how the same message may sound in this relationship.
What really happened
Amira notices imperfections, so continuing to refine the work feels like part of taking responsibility for it. Once she knows something could be better, deliberately leaving it untouched feels wrong. Olek is judging the product against its purpose: if the current quality is sufficient for the user and more work will not materially change the outcome, every extra hour is a cost that could be spent elsewhere. Neither person has to be “meticulous” or “careless”. They simply reach the point of “good enough for the goal” at different moments.
What the research says
Research on perfectionism distinguishes high standards from fear of mistakes and the persistent sense that a result is still not good enough—often described as perfectionistic strivings versus perfectionistic concerns. High standards can sometimes support quality, while concern about mistakes is more consistently associated with strain and burnout; findings on performance itself are mixed (Stoeber et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2017; Kleszewski & Mohr, 2026). So the evidence does not support a simple conclusion that perfectionism is either good or bad. In this situation, the more useful organizational question is whether the next improvement still creates more value than it costs.
How to handle it
Instead of negotiating quality only when one person wants to stop and another wants to keep polishing, define “done” in advance. A team can distinguish, for example, between a draft, a production-ready version and work that requires exceptional refinement. For each additional change, ask: “What will actually improve for the user or the outcome if we spend another hour on this?” The general rule is simple: quality needs a stopping standard. Without one, one person will see responsibility in continuing to improve the work, while another will see responsibility in knowing when to stop.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can help Amira and Olek recognize that “good quality” is not a single universal threshold. Amira’s profile may point to a stronger need for order, closure and avoiding known imperfections, while Olek may be more comfortable working iteratively and stopping when further effort has little additional value. Before the task starts, Em can help them agree on the target standard: “working draft”, “ready to publish” or “fully polished”. That way, Amira does not have to wonder whether leaving a detail alone means being sloppy, and Olek does not have to wonder whether every task requires perfect finishing. Micro-lessons reinforce the distinction between a standard that fits the purpose and the personal feeling that something could always be improved a little more.
Sources
- Joachim Stoeber; Daryl Chesterman; Terri-Anne Tarn (2010). Perfectionism and task performance: Time on task mediates the perfectionistic strivings–performance relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 458-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.021 10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.021
- Huo-Tsan Chang; Yu-Jia Chou; Jia-Wen Liou; Yi-Ting Tu (2016). The effects of perfectionism on innovative behavior and job burnout: Team workplace friendship as a moderator. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.088 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.088
- Emily Kleszewski; Monique Mohr (2026). Is the juice worth the squeeze? Implications of employee perfectionism and excellencism for in-role and extra-role performance. Acta Psychologica, 268, 107315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107315 10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107315
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.