The Flawed Planning Double Bind

One of the hallmark indicators we’re in a double bind is feeling stuck between two opposing choices. Either fork in the crossroads seems like a less than optimal choice. This is the classic double bind conflict of competing, binary options.

Double binds make for bad planning. Either opposing direction creates new problems, and so both opposing directions are sub-optimal.

The essence of a double-bind is that no matter what we consider or try doing, we can’t get out of the dilemma. We get to a point where no amount of more cold data, scarce resources, or political power can get us beyond the constraints of the double bind. When we finally break free, we realize these constraints were self-imposed because we were working from a flawed planning model.

The unfortunate and unnecessary trends in global and local level institutional breakdowns and meltdowns we’re seeing today are the result of leaders trying to do planning from a context of double-binds. Double binds have no power to take us back to better times nor move us forward to futures different from the past.

The only way out is to work from an entirely different planning model altogether.

Flawed planning is essentially a double bind because it’s based on prediction and prediction is tricky. This is not only because uncertainty is a life constant but because predictions come in the assumptive polarities of pessimism and optimism. Working from the assumptions of predictions is the quintessential flaw in double binds and flawed planning.

Optimism is a problem because it disregards certain realities. Pessimism is a problem because it limits our options. If we think of these as two wheels on car pointed in opposite directions of left and right, steering right or left gets us in circles.

One way out of this double bind is flawless planning.

In flawless planning, we work from multiple scenarios and new questions rather than single scenarios and old assumptions. This means we work from multiple versions of scenarios that feature different aspects of favorable and unfavorable situations and outcomes. We also work from questions that turn uncertainties into assets that support our being our best in any given scenario.

Multiple scenarios and new questions instantly liberate us from the double bind of opposing predictions. We waste no time arguing over which prediction is more valid. We don’t erode trust by trying to decide who’s wrong.

The tension between us in self-imposed double binds is entirely a function of our flawed planning model. Double binds not only make us more tense together, they make us more limited together because they prevent access to the inner resources necessary for being our best in any scenario.

The point of planning is being our best. This is less possible when we get and keep ourselves stuck in double binds. It is what’s more possible in flawless planning.

For more about Flawless Planning, visit FlawlessPlanning.org.