Is it 70%, 80% or 94%?

By Julee Briscoe Waldrop, DNP, RN, EBP-C, NC-BC, FAANP, FAAN

Writer’s Camp Counselor

Jayne Jennings Dunlap, DNP, FNP-C, CNE, EBP-C, FAANP

Writer’s Camp Senior Counselor

---

The point is, it doesn’t have to be perfect.

---

Imagine you have had (or are having) an experience like this. You have gone through the process you use to complete a manuscript, solo or with a partner or team. Everyone has contributed, reviewed and edited the work. But, as the corresponding author you have doubts about whether the manuscript is complete, written well enough, well-organized, well supported with evidence, and more. But you really can’t pinpoint what it is that is bothering you. What should you do? Do you keep reading and re-reading it and hoping some sort of “Ah-ha!” moment occurs? Do you wordsmith it to death but not really change anything of substance? Do you hesitate and delay submission or take a leap and open yourself up to the judgment of the editor and peer reviewers?

Proceeding in the Presence of Imperfection

We were at this point with a recent manuscript that addressed one of those topics in nursing education that is like the elephant in the room. Everyone knows it’s a problem. People talk about it often, but no one is really doing much to solve it. So, you can understand our hesitation to publish the manuscript if we weren’t 100% confident. Were we trying for perfection or were we okay with good enough?

Models Surrounding Perfectionism

There are many models of perfectionism. A few that resonate with being a writer include Hewitt and Flett’s Model,¹ the 2 x 2 model,² self-discrepancy theory, and perfectionism as a cognitive behavioral construct.³ The three core types of perfectionism in Hewett and Flett’s Model are 1) self-oriented: imposing unrealistic standards on oneself; 2) other-oriented: imposing high standards on others; and 3) socially prescribed: feeling that others expect you to be perfect. The two that may be more common in nurse authors are self-oriented, where you revise a paragraph ten times and still feel like it’s not good enough or being socially prescribed perfectionist—you hesitate to submit a manuscript, fearing harsh judgment from reviewers or mentors.

The cognitive-behavioral model frames perfectionism as driven by unrelenting standards and conditional self-worth. Self-worth is contingent on achievement. Perfectionist behavior is maintained through cognitive distortions such as all or none thinking (e.g., “If this is not perfect, it’s worthless”); overgeneralization (e.g., “I received one rejection therefore I’m a terrible writer”), and catastrophizing (e.g., “If I publish a flawed article, my career is over”). This leads to a cycle of procrastination, which temporarily reduces anxiety and reinforces avoidance but is damaging in the long run. Once begun, over-editing creates a sense of control which reinforces perfectionistic behaviors. If you—or anyone—receive praise or positive feedback for high achievement, the cycle is strengthened. 

2 x 2 Model of Perfectionism

In the 2 x 2 Model of Perfectionism,² perfectionism is categorized on a combination of high/low personal standards and evaluative concerns as shown in this table.

	Personal Standard	Evaluative Concern or Self-Criticism	Coping Effectiveness
Pure personal standards	High	Low self-criticism	Adaptive
Pure evaluative concerns	Low	High self-criticism	Maladaptive
Mixed perfectionism	High	High self-criticism	Maladaptive
Non-perfectionism	Low	Low self-criticism	Adapative

A mixed perfectionist writer may produce excellent work but is harshly self-critical, often rewriting drafts unnecessarily. In contrast, someone with pure personal standards aims high but accepts feedback and revision without emotional distress.

Perhaps you can see yourself reflected in one of these theories.  Regardless, there are things you can do to overcome perfectionism when it comes to your writing. 

To start, challenge your limiting beliefs. Limiting beliefs are often perpetuated by selective attention to experiences that seem to “prove” them true, which is a type of confirmation bias. They are deeply ingrained negative thoughts or assumptions about oneself, others, or the world that restrict personal growth and potential. Limiting beliefs often develop from past experiences, cultural influences, or repeated negative feedback. An example of a limiting belief related to perfection is, “I (or my writing) must be perfect to be accepted.”  This can be replaced with the adapted positive thought,“This draft is good enough to submit and improve through peer feedback.” By submitting something that you believe is not “perfect” or “quite there yet,” you are breaking the cycle of procrastination and avoidance and opening yourself up to receive constructive peer feedback.  When you do receive feedback, be kind and realistic to yourself rather than punitive and critical. 

Other ways to deal with perfectionist tendencies are to reframe your work using one of these productivity models.

The 70/30 Rule or Execution versus Emergence

The rule posits that once a task (e.g. a writing project) is 70% complete (execution), the remaining 30% will either emerge during the next phase (e.g. review and revision) or be unnecessary for initial completion. It encourages action over perfection, prioritizing progress over exhaustive preparation. In other words, write 70% well and then ship it!

The 94% rule

The 94% rule is attributed to Dr. Angela McBride, a nurse scholar, who advised that it takes as much time and effort to go from 94% to 99% to complete something as it does to get to 94% in the first place. Dr. McBride noted that in a class, 94% is an excellent grade (A+) and 99% is likely above and beyond. Striving for this last 5% may swerve into over-editing and searching for elusive perfection. She made the point that she uses 99%, rather than 100%, because nothing is ever perfect. Again, the iterative review process should help refine the work for final publication and get it to be the best that it can be.

The 80/20 Rule or the Pareto Principle

The 80/20 Rule posits that 80% of outcomes result from 20% of efforts.⁴ The rule encourages prioritizing the high-impact 20% of tasks that yield the most results and avoiding time spent on low-value refinements. If you identify that a manuscript’s core contribution (20%) is going to be the results and discussion and this is what reviewers (and ultimately the readers you want to reach) care about the most, this is where you should put your energy. Instead of obsessing over the abstract or how much or what should be in the background section, prioritize strengthening the discussion. This principle works well with multiple authors on a manuscript; each person gives their all to their portion and in the end, the whole thing comes together.

Minimum Viable Product (MVP) Framework

While no percentages are attached to this framework, which comes from business and process improvement, the central idea is that you release (i.e., sendoff) the simplest version of a product to gather feedback and validate a concept. The goal is early deployment (forward progress) and rapid iteration. Using this framework you might prepare a short-form version of a longer manuscript to test the main idea’s reception before committing to a full-length article. Examples of this would include posting a short version on a blog, or publishing an initial completed draft on a pre-print server. In both cases, commentary and suggestions can be shared with you for feedback.

Satisficing Model

The satisficing model comes from decision theory and pits adequate with optimal.  You might use this model when faced with a time constraint or other need to disseminate. In this case you might decide to submit your work to a solid mid-tier journal maximizing efficiency and completion over exhaustive idealism rather than perseverating on getting it just right for a higher-tiered or aspirational journal. You can even use this model as a starting point to battle perfectionistic tendencies and if your work at a mid-tier journal is not accepted, you can use the feedback to strengthen it for a forthcoming top-tier journal submission.

Tap into Your Passion

Our passion for writing has been developed rather than discovered and we abandoned perfectionism to pursue writing in a meaningful way. We have used a variety of these rules and principles for our writing projects. For us, every imperfectly written work represents a journey and each time we complete a manuscript and subsequent revision, we learn more about writing as a craft. For this piece on perfectionism, we decided to go ahead and submit it to Leslie Nicoll, the Writer’s Camp Director, for review and editing once we had read through our most recent draft a few times and felt good about it. We knew Leslie would likely improve it and we welcomed her expertise to strengthen our message. Waiting to try and perfect this work on our own was less important than getting this message out to Writer’s Camp campers (you!).

Conclusion

In the case of our most recent manuscript in the earlier example, we decided to use the 70/30 principle and embrace the adaptive pure personal standard aspect of the 2 x 2 Model of Perfectionism.  We braced ourselves to receive the editor’s and reviewers’ comments and knew we would use this gift to improve our argument and ability to clearly articulate our solution to the issue we were addressing.  We received significant feedback from the reviewers and the editor, as we expected, with major revisions as the decision. However, by welcoming the feedback and using the 70/30 principle, we were able to significantly revise our work.

The result was a much clearer, focused, example-driven manuscript that provided actionable information, which was our original intent.

Note: In the spirit for protesting perfectionism, we submitted this manuscript prior to knowing the publication decision of the most recent manuscript outlined in the example. The next day, we found out that article was accepted without any further revisions.⁷

References

1. Hewitt PL, Flett GL. Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;60(3):456-470. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456
2. Gaudreau P, Thompson A. Testing a 2×2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010;48(5):532-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.031
3. Shafran R, Cooper Z, Fairburn CG. Clinical perfectionism: A cognitive–behavioral analysis. Behavior Research and Therapy, 2002;40(7), 773–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00059-6
4. Koch R. The 80/20 Principle: The Secret to Achieving More with Less. 2011; Crown Business.
5. Ries E. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. 2011; Crown Business.
6. Simon HA. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 1956; 63(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
7. Waldrop J, Dunlap JJ, Derouin A. The practice ready DNP nurse: A call to action, Nursing Outlook, in press, 2025

Authors: Julee Briscoe Waldrop & Jayne Jennings Dunlap

Reviewed and edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll

Copyright ©2025, Writer’s Camp and Julee Briscoe Waldrop & Jayne Jennings Dunlap. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Waldrop JB, Dunlap JJ. Is it 70%, 80%, or 94%? The Writer’s Camp Journal, 1(2):1, doi:10.5281/zenodo.15784353