Time to Let Go of Plan A

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

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:

Is It Blame or Is It Accountability?

When we seek those accountable for a particular failure, we risk blaming them instead, because many of us confuse accountability with blame. What's the difference between them? How can we keep blame at bay?

That Was a Yes-or-No Question: II

When, in the presence of others, someone asks you "a simple yes or no" question, beware. Chances are that you're confronting a trap. Here's Part II of a set of suggestions for dealing with the yes-or-no trap.

Congruent Decision Making: II

Decision makers who rely on incomplete or biased information are more likely to make decisions that don't fit the reality of their organizations. Here's Part II of a framework for making decisions that fit.

Fake Requests for Help

When a colleague asks for assistance, we can feel validated, even flattered. But not all requests for help are what they seem. The more devious amongst us can be endlessly creative in employing requests for help to achieve devious ends.

On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it?

See also Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 16: Responding to Unwelcome Events

Unwelcome events have two kinds of effects on decision-makers. One set of effects appears as we respond to events that have actually occurred. Another set manifests itself as we prepare for unwelcome events that haven't yet occurred, but which might occur. Making a wrong decision in either case can be costly. Available here and by RSS on July 16.

And on July 23: Microdelegation

Microdelegation is a style of delegation in which the delegator unintentionally communicates the task to the subordinate in such detail and so repetitively that the subordinate is offended. As a result of this delegation style, many subordinates feel distrusted or suspected of fraud or goldbricking. Available here and by RSS on July 23.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.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