Preference Is Not Judgment: What Luxury Service Has Been Calling Instinct

A fire lieutenant once ordered his crew out of an ordinary house fire without knowing why he felt they were in danger. Moments later, the floor collapsed, and the building itself confirmed his gut feeling (Klein, 1998/2017). A judgment call in a great house may not be a matter of life or death, but it can still have far-reaching implications for operations, trust, and alignment with the owner’s preferences. No floor confirms that call, because in private service the only measure of a decision is the owner, and the field should treat drawing out the owner’s standard as its highest senior work.

In luxury service, “good” and “good enough” are spectrums, and we all have a different benchmark. An owner’s benchmark often stays in the owner’s mind, unspoken. I call what results undocumented preference: a personal standard a professional is expected to meet but has never been given. Our field has been calling it instinct, and that is the wrong name.

No floor confirms a judgment call in luxury service

Experience changes how people decide. The psychologist Gary Klein showed this by interviewing 26 fireground commanders, who averaged 23 years of experience, about 156 decisions made during real incidents (Klein et al., 2010). Fewer than 12 percent of those decisions showed any sign of comparing options side by side. In more than 80 percent, the commanders recognized the situation and moved directly to a course of action. They rarely weighed options because they already knew what to do. Klein’s recognition-primed decision model describes the process: experienced people size up a situation, identify a workable response, and test it by imagining how it would play out (Klein, 1998/2017).

The word “workable” matters. Klein connects this strategy to Herbert Simon’s concept of satisficing, which means choosing the first option that works instead of searching for the best one (Simon, 1957, as cited in Klein, 1998/2017).

Every experienced decision therefore ends at some version of good enough. That leaves the question at the center of this article: who decides what good enough means?

In a fire, the conditions of the emergency decide. The fire goes out or the structure fails, and the answer arrives. A senior estate leader often receives no such answer. Whether a restored collection piece is acceptable, whether a contractor’s finish meets the standard of a seven-figure renovation, and whether a residence is truly ready all depend on one person’s view. Klein did not study estates, so this contrast is my inference, but it explains why judgment calls in our field are so seldom settled.

Luxury has no definition except the one each person brings

The difficulty begins with the word itself. No official definition of a luxury hotel exists, and scholars find it hard to agree on one because luxury is so personal, shaped by each person’s history and cultural background (Heyes, 2021). Put simply, even the people who study luxury cannot say exactly what it is. A growing industry rests on a word it has not settled.

A hotel can at least publish a brand standard and serve many guests against it. A private estate serves one family, and therefore has one standard to meet and no roadmap to get there. The research concerns hotels, so the step to private homes is my inference, but the home sharpens the point. In a great house, luxury is whatever these particular people have come to expect, and those expectations are rarely written down.

In luxury service, “good enough” lives in the owner’s head

The hardest standards to meet are the ones their holders cannot fully explain. The philosopher Michael Polanyi (1966/2013) called this tacit knowledge, arguing that people know more than they can tell. We can recognize what we want long before we can describe it.

The documentary Jiro Dreams of Sushi (Gelb, 2011) shows how such a standard governs work at the highest level. Daisuke Nakazawa, who trained under the sushi master Jiro Ono for eleven years, later said that tamago is not difficult, even though he made it 200 times before Ono said, “Ok” (Cheng, 2013). He recalled that no attempt was approved until the master judged the egg “good enough to serve to the customers” (Talks at Google, 2017). His accounts record a verdict and no recipe. My reading is that Ono could recognize the egg he wanted more easily than he could describe it, and that “good enough” meant what one man finally accepted. Nakazawa at least stood beside the person who held the standard and received a verdict on each attempt, which is more than most private service professionals are given.

An owner’s standard works the same way, living in the owner’s head until it is verbalized. Consider how to pack a suitcase, a task that appears simple until it is performed for another person. It is very hard to pack for someone until you get to know them, because a favorite pair of jeans and a preferred pair of running shoes are preferences, not judgment calls. An owner can say, “For a three-day trip, I need casual outfits and exercise outfits.” With ten to twenty or more choices in each category of a standard wardrobe, however, anyone trying without guidelines, even a spouse, will get it wrong. A rail of crisp white dress shirts may look identical to everyone except the owner, who knows exactly which one is meant and why.

The instruction “pack a blue suit” is no more complete, because it leaves open which suit, what size, and what shoes, all of which take time to master on behalf of another person. It also leaves open how the suit should travel. A garment bag may be good enough for one owner, while another expects tissue paper at each fold so the jacket will not crease, a delicate measure that increases the overall load of the suitcase. What is packed and how it is packed are personal preferences that have to be documented, and neither can be done on instinct until someone asks the deeper questions and receives a direct answer from the owner.

How, then, is a private service professional expected to carry out deeply personal tasks without explicit instructions that can be repeated? The honest answer is that the professional cannot, at least not reliably. This is why building standard operating procedures in estate management takes time, and why owners must give clear instructions that reflect the true complexity of each task. A suitcase is a modest subject, but the same structure appears in a collection loan, a staffing succession, or the preparation of a residence for a family foundation’s donors. Much of what the field calls judgment is undocumented preference, and in estate, luxury, and family office management, decision-making remains nuanced and ambiguous until someone can articulate the standard.

Instinct cannot be trained on an unspoken standard

Instinct is only as good as the feedback that trained it. Klein and the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman concluded that intuition can be trusted only when an environment is predictable enough to learn and a person has had a real opportunity to learn it (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). That opportunity depends on feedback (Kahneman & Klein, 2010). They also concluded that subjective experience is not a reliable indicator of accuracy, so feeling certain settles nothing.

A private household tests both conditions, and this is my inference from their work. The environment to be learned is one person’s taste, and the feedback may arrive late, only when something goes wrong, or never. Absence of failure is not a performance measure, yet a professional without stated standards may have little else to go on. This is why judgment in private service so often never feels right.

Klein also concludes that the ability to read someone’s mind depends on familiarity with that person and on clarity about the intent (Klein, 1998/2017). Both take time, and neither transfers with a résumé. A distinguished record proves mastery of one family’s benchmarks, and the next family’s must be learned from the beginning.

Some owners will never say it was enough

The objection to this argument deserves its full weight. An exacting standard is often part of why a family has built what it has, and an owner is entitled to expect a great deal from those entrusted with a home. An owner’s attention is also scarce, and a professional who requests instruction on every detail has not lightened the owner’s load. Many owners, as Polanyi would predict, may not be able to state a preference until they see it unmet.

Research on decision styles adds a caution. Maximizers seek the best possible outcome, while satisficers stop at good enough (Schwartz et al., 2002). Among final-year students seeking jobs, maximizers secured starting salaries about 20 percent higher, yet were less satisfied with the jobs they obtained (Iyengar et al., 2006). These were students, not principals, and no owner can be diagnosed from such a study. Doing better and feeling satisfied simply do not always arrive together.

The lesson for private service is a sobering one, and it is an inference from adjacent evidence. For some owners, a judgment call will never be good enough, however skilled the professional who made it. That outcome is not necessarily a failure of the owner, whose standard may be exactly what it should be, and it is not necessarily a failure of the professional. The failure lies in treating an unmet benchmark as a complete verdict on competence, when no one has established where the benchmark stands.

Drawing out the luxury standard is the senior work

None of this means that documentation can replace judgment. Klein writes that no one can specify every detail in advance and that both parties to a request have to extend themselves (Klein, 1998/2017). A document can say what to do, but a person still has to judge when it applies (Kahneman & Klein, 2010). Standard operating procedures record what is preference, so that a professional’s judgment can be reserved for what truly remains unknown.

A senior professional does not wait for the owner to volunteer the benchmark, because that moment may never come. She acts on her best reading of what the owner would want, states that reading openly, and treats each reaction as evidence. When a decision is corrected, she goes after the preference behind the correction and documents it, so that the same question never has to reach the owner twice. Incomplete information is the ordinary condition of this work, and leading through it is part of what seniority means. Over time, she becomes the person who produces clarity in the house, often supplying the language for standards the owner has never had to state.

Scholars call this work knowledge codification, and it rests on a written record, trust, and respect for what writing cannot hold. Tacit knowledge is captured in forms that grow more explicit through critique, review, and reflection (O’Meara & Kelliher, 2021). Put simply, what lives in someone’s head is gradually written down, tested, and improved. That capture may depend on trust. In a study of 12 family farms in Cyprus, families shared knowledge with those they trusted and kept it from those they did not (Hadjielias et al., 2021). Farms are not great houses, and the inference is mine, but an owner who withholds a preference may simply not yet trust someone with it. Nor will everything reach the page. In elder care, knowledge and job performance can be so intertwined that they are hard to separate without close observation (Börjesson et al., 2014). Some of what a great professional knows can only be seen in the doing, which is why codification supports judgment and will never replace it.

In luxury service, what we call instinct has a better name

The field should stop describing undocumented preference as a judgment call, and it should stop measuring professionals against benchmarks no one has stated. Owners should give this complexity the time it requires, because a standard they will not explain is one they cannot fairly expect to see met. Family offices and advisers should treat that time as an investment, because a standard held between one owner and one long-serving professional leaves when that professional leaves. Senior professionals should be valued for asking the deeper questions early and for turning the answers into standards that others can repeat.

The lieutenant had a floor to tell him he was right. An estate professional has only the owner, and until that benchmark is spoken, every judgment call in the house remains an unconfirmed guess about one person’s mind. That condition has a name, and the name is not instinct. It is undocumented preference.

Private benchmarks can become shared standards

In my advisory work, this begins with discovery alongside principals and estate leadership to define the household’s service outcomes. Bespoke team training, leadership pathways within the house, and culture creation then hold those standards in place. The result is a team that is seen and developed, lower turnover and attrition, and principals who can enjoy their homes rather than manage complaints or rely on silence.

For more information or to schedule a discovery call, visit www.luxurylifestylelogistics.com.

About the Author

Jen Laurence, PhD is the Founder and President of Luxury Lifestyle Logistics — an estate operational advisory firm serving ultra-high-net-worth principals and family offices worldwide.

With more than 25 years of experience inside private estates and luxury service environments, Jen works directly with principals, family offices, and their estate teams to assess operations, strengthen household systems, and build the leadership infrastructure that makes complex private residences run with both precision and grace.

Her advisory practice sits at the intersection of operations and organizational leadership — bringing clarity to governance structures, service standards, and the human systems beneath the operational ones. As the first doctoral scholar to formally define modern estate management as a leadership discipline, she brings a rare depth of scholarship and field-tested expertise to this space.

At its best, estate management is not about performative perfection. It is about leadership that can hold both formality and family life — where service feels five-star, even though a home is not a hotel.

Explore what an advisory engagement looks like at www.LuxuryLifestyleLogistics.com

References

Börjesson, U., Bengtsson, S., & Cedersund, E. (2014). “You have to have a certain feeling for this work”: Exploring tacit knowledge in elder care. SAGE Open, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014534829

Cheng, J. (2013, November 8). Behind the scenes at Sushi Nakazawa (interview). The Village Voice. https://www.villagevoice.com/?p=359970

Gelb, D. (Director). (2011). Jiro dreams of sushi [Film]. Magnolia Pictures.

Hadjielias, E., Christofi, M., & Tarba, S. (2021). Knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing in small family farms: A stewardship view. Journal of Business Research, 137, 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.042

Heyes, A. (2021). What is luxury hospitality? A need to move towards a scientific understanding. Research in Hospitality Management, 11(2), 67–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/22243534.2021.1917919

Iyengar, S. S., Wells, R. E., & Schwartz, B. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the “best” job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x

Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755

Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2010, March 1). Strategic decisions: When can you trust your gut? [Interview by O. Sibony & D. Lovallo]. McKinsey Quarterly. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/strategic-decisions-when-can-you-trust-your-gut

Klein, G. (2017). Sources of power: How people make decisions (20th anniversary ed.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1998)

Klein, G., Calderwood, R., & Clinton-Cirocco, A. (2010). Rapid decision making on the fire ground: The original study plus a postscript. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4(3), 186–209. https://doi.org/10.1518/155534310x12844000801203

O’Meara, M., & Kelliher, F. (2021). Knowledge codification. In C. Machado & J. P. Davim (Eds.), Knowledge management and learning organizations (pp. 25–50). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71079-8_2

Polanyi, M. (2013). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1966)

Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178

Talks at Google. (2017, February 3). How sushi changes two men’s lives | Sushi Nakazawa [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz12my2ghAU