Fast. Cheap. Good. Pick Two.

There’s a simple framework used in many industries:

Fast. Cheap. Good. Pick two.

But what Sharon McClafferty is increasingly seeing is something far worse: people entering situations that deliver none of the three.

No clear result.
No defined timeline.
No real understanding of cost.

In this episode of High Agency, Sharon explores why this happens and how high-agency thinkers approach decisions differently.

After more than two decades working with accounting and financial planning firms, Sharon has developed strong pattern recognition for situations where effort will be high and outcomes disappointing, not because people lack capability, but because no one paused to decide what actually mattered most. 

Through a series of stories, including a family law consultation, a clever real estate negotiation, and a Brisbane architect who forces clients to prioritise trade-offs,  Sharon illustrates how clarity around time, cost and result can transform the decisions we make.

Because every important decision sits somewhere inside that triangle.

The problem isn’t that trade-offs exist.

The problem is when no one names them.

In this episode:

• The Fast / Cheap / Good framework and why it shows up everywhere
• Why people accidentally enter “zero-for-three” agreements
• A real example of how family law can become an undefined cost + time trap
• A brilliant negotiation strategy from entrepreneur Guy Mankey
• How architects use structured trade-offs to avoid project conflict
• Why clarity around priorities removes most decision friction
• The real definition of high agency

Key Insight

Every meaningful decision involves three variables:

Time
 Cost
 Result

One will always matter most — whether you acknowledge it or not.

High agency simply means pausing to decide which one it is, and behaving accordingly.

A Question to Reflect On

Where in your life are you moving forward without clarity?

Where are you entering agreements where no one has named the priority?

Coming Next

In the next episode, Sharon flips the triangle around and explores how sellers make the exact same mistake — by assuming what matters most to buyers instead of asking.

About High Agency

High Agency is a show for owners of accounting and financial planning businesses who want more clarity, more courage, and a better life.

Hosted by Sharon McClafferty, the podcast explores the decisions, behaviours and patterns that separate reactive business owners from those who actively design better businesses and lives.

If you'd like to know more about Sharon's company Slipstream Group and the results their clients achieve, visit https://slipstreamgroup.com.au

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

This is High Agency, a show for owners of accounting and financial planning businesses who want more clarity, more courage, and a better life. There's a framework that once you see it, you'll start noticing it everywhere. Fast, cheap, or good. Pick two. You can have good and cheap or cheap and fast or fast and good, but you need to pick. I keep seeing people sign up for situations that are actually 0 for 3. No guaranteed result, no clear cost, and no time frames that anyone is prepared to stand behind. And they proceed anyway. Let's talk about why and how to avoid accidentally playing the zero for three game. This is High Agency, a show for owners of accounting and financial planning businesses who want more clarity, more courage, and a better life. Hi, I'm Sharon McClafferty. I use evidence and experience to help business owners create a better business and a better life years sooner than they thought possible. Before we jump into today's episode, I want to give you a quick update from the high agency world and what has happened since we dropped our first three episodes. So I want to thank everyone who sent me emails and DMs and messages on every platform. And for those of you who have called me, I've had quite a lot of phone calls from sometimes people I haven't heard from in years who listen to the podcast and were compelled to pick up the phone. So they've been really fantastic. People have been asking for more episodes. So there's been a little pressure on that front. I found out my podcast was the subject in a group chat discussion. So I want to shout out to my group chat fans in Aubrey. And um, this t-shirt happened. So on the front of it it says Instigator, which, you know, mischief managed. And on the back of it, it says, Well, well, well, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions, uh, which came out of the first three episodes. And apparently quite a few of my listeners live on the Brisbane North Side. I have had a number of people come up to me to let me know that they have seen me running those hills. Uh, and now that kind of makes every run feel like advertisement for this show. So I guess I will have to continue to do the hard things every day. All right, let's get into today's idea. I first saw this framework drawn by a guy called Simon Bowen, who's known as the frameworks guy. And it's really simple, it's just a triangle. And each corner uh there's the word time, cost, result in each corner. So you've probably seen it expressed uh another way, which fast, cheap, good, pick two. But I've been noticing more and more people aren't choosing their two. They're entering agreements that are zip for three and they proceed anyway. As is very much my style, I'm going to illustrate this with a handful of stories that seem wildly unrelated at first. Um, but today's story time does involve throwing a little bit of shade at family lawyers and real estate agents, you know, because I like to choose difficult targets to criticize. Anyway, but if you stay with me, you'll see the pattern. So after more than two decades in financial services and the last 16 years focused on the commercial performance of accounting and financial planning firms, I've developed a fairly strong pattern recognition. And usually I can tell when someone's about to enter a situation where the effort will be high and the outcomes will be disappointing. And not because they're incapable, but because they've never paused to decide what actually mattered most and sort of proceeded without that ideal result or time or cost in mind. So recently a friend of mine came and sat on my back deck one afternoon looking completely despondent. She had just spoken to a family lawyer about a custody issue, and she told me how the conversation went. So she asked the lawyer, you know, how much is this going to cost to sort out? And he said, Oh, you know, there's a lot of variables, but I expect it will be somewhere between $80,000 and $500,000. Okay. She was a bit shocked by that price and the massive ballpark. And she asked, Okay, um, how long do you think it's going to take? And his answer was, probably somewhere between six months and a couple of years. And then she asked, you know, a pretty important question, what is the likelihood that I actually get the custody arrangement that I'm asking for? And his answer was, there are no guarantees, and in fact, no guarantees that you'll get an arrangement that is any better than the arrangement you currently have. So, what I'm going to do as your new lawyer is I'm going to send you my cost schedule. And as soon as you sign that, I can get started.

unknown 5:35

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 5:36

So let's recap that deal for a moment. He is asking her for a blank check. I can't tell you how much it's going to cost. Uh, all the ballpark is so ridiculous. A timeline that could stretch on for years, and a result that could be no better than today. So no, I'm really glad she sat on my back deck and we talked about what's really important for her and her children, because entering into that disaster of a situation, half a million dollars, a couple of years, no guaranteed result, except that you annoy everyone in the process and you're a lot poorer, uh, yeah, would be a would be a horrible decision for her life. When my husband and I separated in uh 2023, I approached that situation very differently. So of the three variables, result, cost, time, the one I cared about the most was time. I was even willing to lose quickly. Because I've watched a lot of people spend two to three years in that battle and spend a fortune and destroy any chance of a healthy co-parenting relationship afterwards. And I look at that and I genuinely wonder what would I pay to get three happy, healthy years of my life back? So once I decided that time was what mattered most, the decision actually became quite simple. So clarity about trade-offs, I think, is one of the most underrated life skills, and maybe especially when the emotional stakes are high. So I've been thinking I could actually do a bonus episode on separation. If that would be interesting to hear for yourself or send to your friends and potentially clients, let me know on socials or email hello at slipstreamgroup.com.au and I will record a high agency episode specifically about separation and divorce and approaching it with high agency. So after those first three episodes came out, I got a call from one of my favorite thinkers, Mr. Guy Manke. And I was already thinking about this episode, and I was already thinking about people who enter those zero for three deals, particularly in family law. And I said to Guy, why do you think they do it? Like it just on the tin, it looks, it looks like a game I just don't want to play. And Guy's answer was uh people proceed because they don't pause to think about is there another way or how could this go horribly wrong? Or what is the best case scenario if I enter this agreement? I also think it's a moment where you know, desperate people with without knowing other options just take the one that looks like the done thing, you know, Kerry at the primary school use this lawyer. I guess that's what the done thing is. Uh so I think it is that lack of pausing and thinking about what result am I really after? In what sort of time frame, and what am I prepared to pay to get that? And then he sort of said they assume the process they've been shown is the only process available. And he gave me the best story to illustrate that point, and I asked him for permission to share it with you. So this was many moons ago. He was selling a townhouse in Sydney suburbs. And instead of list it with an agent, he listed it himself on the platforms, and he got a lot of phone calls from agents. So they all basically contacted him and said a similar thing, which is, oh, you'll be crazy to sell it yourself. You won't get the price that you want, or uh it'll be harder than you think, or you're gonna lose money because on the deal. Uh, so don't do this yourself, was all of these agents calling him. And so he said to a couple of them, he said, okay, why don't you come over, see the place, and we'll chat about your service. And he had this same conversation with three agents, and it goes like this. Okay, yep, understand that this is your main game and you list properties and sell properties successfully all the time. I'm actually interested in selling this property really quickly. So I'd like to know from you, not what's the best price I could get for the property, but what could you get really quickly? If we were in a fire sale environment, what could you get by making a couple of phone calls, have this wrapped up within a week? And they all gave him response. And so one guy said, I reckon I could get you in a fire sale, maybe 900 grand. And he said, Yep, that's pretty much what I thought I could get selling it myself as well. Okay, so make a couple of phone calls, we could sell it for 900 by the end of this week. And the agent says, Yeah, but it's worth more than that. And guy said, No, that's okay. I understand. So I'm happy to give you the listing, but I'm only going to pay you commission on the amount above $900,000. Because as we've established, there's no value in selling it for $900 because I could do that myself, or you could do that with one or two phone calls. So I'm not really wanting to pay your commission on the first $900 because I don't see any value in the first 900. Big pause as the real estate agent realizes the conversation they're really happening isn't having, isn't about selling this property quickly, but about a negotiation of how the fee is structured. So Guy said to the real estate agent, I'm prepared to pay you, I think it was 10%, might have been 8%, but I'm prepared to pay you 10% on the money that you get above 900. I'm not prepared to pay you 2.5% on the whole transaction. So happy to sign your listing form on the basis that the value that I'm paying for is the amount you're getting over the 900. Now, two of the three that he had these conversations with, you know, shook their head and said, that's just not how it works, you know, that's not how it's done. But please sign my listing here at the agreed two and a half percent plus GST, to which guy said thanks, but no thanks. But he did actually have a real estate agent who said, you know, I am up for that challenge. And he signed an agreement at a, I think it was 10% commission on the amount above 900,000. And then that real estate agent worked really hard to sell the property. The guy happily paid him because it sold for just over 1.1%, I think he said. And so we paid him the 10% on the amount over 900 because that's where he saw the value. Now, for me, like that is such a high agency way to enter that discussion and a little cheeky in terms of let me have a conversation with you, telling you that the thing that matters the most is the time. I just need it fire sound really quickly, and then let me pivot the conversation to say, okay, now we've agreed on what takes no effort to achieve, and let's price the bit that actually takes the effort to achieve. I just think that is a fantastic story to illustrate maybe just pausing and thinking, how could this work differently? Now, I know that would be annoying if every single client you work with approached every conversation like that, but it's a great illustration, just pausing and thinking, how could this be done? So I recently experienced something very cool while working with an architect. So shout out to May Tree Studios in Brisbane, who are excellent. Uh, when we had our first meeting together to discuss the project, um, so small backstory. I have a three-bedroom house, I have two girls, they share a room, and I've always said they have to share a room throughout all of primary school. Uh, but this year is our last year, where one of them is in primary school and I have this third spare bedroom, but I like a life that includes having guests stay at my house. I have a lot of international friends and people that want to stay and family. And so the idea that I would have a house that doesn't have a dedicated guest room uh doesn't work for the life that I want. So I've been really conscious that I don't want this renovation to be some ego project. I want it to be about building a full, rich life with the community that I love. Anyway, my first meeting with the architects, they had these 12 statements and they made me prioritize them. And if you look at those 12 statements, they can basically be categorized into result, time, and cost. But things like, you know, do square meterage matters to me, or the luxury of my finishes, or finishing on time is the most important thing, or finishing uh below budget or within budget. And there was just these 12 statements, and I had to order them all. And I thought that's useful so that we're all on the same page about what matters to me. But now that I'm further into working with them, is where the rubber really hits the road. Because I look at the plan and I go, why can't we just bump that wall out, that extension out another two or three meters? And they can calmly say to me, because you prioritized standard of finish above floor sites. And so if you said that the square meter itch mattered more, then we could do that, but the standard of the finish would go down in order to meet these things that you were said were important about your budget. And so it just becomes a really adult conversation. Like we're not arguing, they're just pointing me back to the things that I said were most important and the trade-offs that I had agreed to make during this project to get the ultimate outcome that I wanted. How clever. So I want to challenge you to think about your own life and all of the projects and situations that you have going on. And I'd like to ask you where in your life are you proceeding without clarity? So, what agreement are you entering into where no one has named the priority? Or what sort of fork in the road are you pretending isn't a fork where you actually have to make the trade-off? So every important decision is a triangle, right? Time, cost, result. One of them always matters most. Whether you pause to acknowledge it or not, you might only discover it at the end because you look at the result and think, oh, I I should have been clearer on my expectations. Or you look at the bill and you think, I would have rather not do this than spend that much money. So where almost every important decision in life sits somewhere in that triangle. The problem isn't that trade-offs exist. The problem is when no one names them. So think about that. Where am I proceeding in life without deciding the variable that matters the most? High agency is simply this pausing to decide and then behaving accordingly. Because when you decide the variable, most of the decision makes itself. My separation took 10 days. So in this episode, we talked about the triangle from the buyer's perspective. In the next episode, I want to flip the triangle around because the exact same mistake happens on the selling side when sellers assume what matters most to the buyer instead of asking. See you in episode five.