Why Some People Prefer Flawed Planning
I’ve been asking people if, given the choice, they would prefer flawless to flawed planning. It’s interesting when people pause to think about it. It’s a moment of doubt — if not conscious or unconscious resistance. Other people quickly respond with some version of Why not?
Whether we’re doing strategic, project, or operational planning, we can take a more flawed or flawless approach. The difference is quite simple and obvious: in flawed planning, we’re working from logical or illogical assumptions, and in flawless planning, we’re working from new questions.
We plan from three intentions: to create a future that replicates the way things once were; to create a future that sustains the way things are; and to create a future different from the past or present. We might or might not explicitly express our planning intentions, but they eventually become obvious in the model we use for planning and our results.
Flawed planning is the optimum model when our planning intention is to replicate the past or sustain the present. When we see problems and challenges persisting, it’s not because they are intrinsically intractable. It’s not because there is something wrong with the people who fail to solve and resolve them. It’s precisely because they’re using a flawed planning model that has no power to create a future different from the past.
It doesn’t matter how much lip service we give to “wanting change.” We can make all kinds of speeches and do all kinds of advocacy for change, but we are complicit in making change less possible by taking a flawed planning model.
Flawless planning creates a new future because it’s based on new questions. When questions come up in flawed planning, they’re typically old questions — questions we easily answer with assumptions. The questions that shape flawless planning are typically new and we translate them into new actions that lead to new results.
When we’re planning together, there are usually some people who want to keep things the same or as they were and other people who want things to be different. People who prefer flawed planning have reasons for their bias. It could be fear, overwhelm, or pessimism. They fear any form of failure, they feel intolerably overwhelmed, or they believe nothing could or will ever change.
When the group moves forward with a flawless planning model, even the change resisters discover how easy it is for them to engage in the process. They realize they were resisting flawed planning even though they seemed certain it would be able to keep things the same or the way they were.
People who appear to resist change don’t resist change; they resist uncertainty. They haven’t yet developed the ability to process uncertainty — the way some people haven’t developed the physiology to process certain kinds of foods.
A flawless planning model teaches people — one step at a time — how to process uncertainty. People learn how to thrive in the intrinsic uncertainties of planning.
When we invite people into flawless planning the invitation is to learn it. It has to be an authentic invitation, not a colonial expectation. As Peter Block suggests, if people can’t say no, their yes is meaningless.
The first step in flawless planning is understanding how each of us thinks about the future. This instantly creates an environment of emotional safety and trust because people feel valued for the unique perspectives they bring to the table. It becomes the foundation for creating a future that works for all. When this happens, two kinds of responses occur in the group: people who are surprised this could happen and people who are not surprised this could happen. That’s the power of a model that works.
