Some teams encounter insurmountable obstacles as they try to execute their plans. They nevertheless persist. When teams have difficulty abandoning — or even revising — their original plans, a natural question arises. Why can they not let go of Plan A? One possible reason why people might be reluctant to let go of Plan A is that there is no Plan B. The question then becomes, "Why is there no Plan B?"
Some people are averse to creating a Plan B, on principle. They cite a saying often attributed to hang glider pilots, "Don't look where you don't want to land." Presumably this applies mostly to hang glider landing maneuvers. In the context of projects, several interpretations are possible. Example #1: "Pay attention to where you want to land. Time you spend looking elsewhere is time you can't get back." To me, that seems like wisdom.
But another interpretation I've heard, which I regard as more questionable in value, is Example #2: "Looking at backup landing sites reduces the chances of landing where you want to land." Maybe that makes sense for hang gliding. For project planning, it seems like the opposite of wisdom.
Still, There are those who believe
that making backup plans is
tantamount to self-sabotagethere are those who believe that making backup plans is tantamount to self-sabotage. They argue that making backup plans takes time and resources. That time and those resources would have been available for Plan A, if we hadn't allocated them to developing Plan B. Taking them away from Plan A makes Plan A more likely to fail.
The problem with this argument is that it's a general statement. It suggests that all risk management enhances the probability of the managed risks materializing. That seems to me to be false on its face. So for me, having a Plan B doesn't make Plan A more likely to fail.
Another possible explanation for the apparent absence of a Plan B is that there actually is a Plan B, but it's a secret. There are those who believe that if the people who do the work of Plan A knew about Plan B, they might not work as energetically or creatively as needed for Plan A to succeed. Or they might not be willing to make the sacrifices necessary for Plan A to succeed. The advocates of this approach would likely agree with Samuel Johnson, who is credited with the insight that nothing so focuses the mind as the prospect of being hanged in a fortnight. These advocates conclude that keeping Plan B secret is necessary for the success of Plan A.
Sometimes, advocates of secrecy go a bit further. They argue for letting it be known — falsely — that a task force worked long and hard to put together a Plan B. And they failed. The task force found that no Plan B was possible. These advocates of Plan B secrecy believe that this false story will truly "focus the minds" of the Plan A teams.
So these are two reasons why a Plan B might not be available or might not be widely known. But why do people continue to advocate Plan A after it has already encountered serious obstacles, even when a Plan B is available? That's the topic for next time. Next issue in this series Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Ten Tactics for Tough Times: II
- When you find yourself in a tough spot politically, what can you do? Most of us obsess about the situation
for a while, and then if we still have time to act, we do what seems best. Here's Part II of a set of
approaches that can organize your thinking and shorten the obsessing.
- Dismissive Gestures: I
- Humans are nothing if not inventive. In the modern organization, where verbal insults are deprecated,
we've developed hundreds of ways to insult each other silently (or nearly so). Here's part one of a
catalog of nonverbal insults.
- On the Appearance of Impropriety
- Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is a frequent basis of business decisions. What does this mean,
what are the consequences of such avoiding, and when is it an appropriate choice?
- Devious Political Tactics: Mis- and Disinformation
- Practitioners of workplace politics intent on gaining unfair advantage sometimes use misinformation,
disinformation, and other information-related tactics. Here's a short catalog of techniques to watch for.
- Conway's Law and Technical Debt
- Conway's Law is an observation that the structures of systems we design tend to replicate our communication
patterns. This tendency might also contribute to their tendency to accumulate what we now call technical debt.
See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development
- Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.
- And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law
- When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed