Time to Go to Plan B

We continue the exploration we began last time, when we considered why some groups persist with a plan that's clearly falling short of initial expectations. Last week's post explored the case in which there is no "Plan B." That discussion left open the question of why people are reluctant to adopt a Plan B when Plan B is well developed, and Plan A is clearly failing. That's the question for this time. Here are three scenarios that apply to that situation. Clearly there are many more.

Workplace perfectionism

Outside the organizational setting, the term perfectionism refers to excessive concern with achieving an unattainable goal, combined with unremittingly critical self-evaluation for failing to attain that unattainable goal. Certainly this pattern is observable in the workplace. But a variety of perfectionism that causes even more trouble in the workplace is probably a bit more common — call it workplace perfectionism.

One factor that distinguishes workplace perfectionism is the attainability of the goal. Workplace perfectionists usually strive toward attainable goals, while personal perfectionists usually strive toward unattainable goals. A second distinguishing factor is how success is determined. In personal perfectionism, the perfectionist determines success, and the determination is almost certainly failure. In workplace perfectionism, persons other than the perfectionist — supervisors or rivals — usually determine whether the effort was a success. Since the goal of the workplace perfectionist is often attainable, success is not uncommon.

Nevertheless, workplace perfectionism can be damaging to the enterprise, because the benefit of having achieved the goal doesn't justify the cost. For example, the goal achieved might have been more costly than another goal that would have served enterprise needs just as well, or even better. But the workplace perfectionist can have a personal agenda that makes the effort seem worthwhile to the perfectionist. For example, in clinging to Plan A, the perfectionist might be trying to avoid the embarrassing or career-damaging consequences of having Plan A recognized as a failure. If that is the perfectionist's agenda, he or she might be exhibiting a behavior that Swider, et al., call "failure-avoiding perfectionism" in the workplace context [Swider 2018].

For a different take on workplace perfectionism, see "The Weaver's Pathway," Point Lookout for May 7, 2003.

Personal Plan Bs

Some advocates of persisting with a failing Plan A have made another kind of rational calculation based on self-interest. They have personal Plan Bs. An example of a personal Plan B is securing employment elsewhere in the enterprise, or in other organizations. Let me call people with personal Plan Bs PPBs.

Workplace perfectionists usually strive
toward attainable goals, while
personal perfectionists usually
strive toward unattainable goalsIf Plan A ultimately succeeds, then everyone, including the PPBs, will enjoy a successful outcome. If Plan A fails, the PPBs will have what they regard as acceptable outcomes based on their personal Plan Bs. Others might not be so fortunate, but the PPBs are willing to accept that others might suffer as the result of Plan A's failure.

Lose-lose decisions

Some advocates of persisting with a failing Plan A believe that Plan A is failing, but fear the consequences of acknowledging the failure. They're trying to comply with what they see as the approved organizational position vis-à-vis Plan A. Some might even be willing to (privately) declare Plan A a failure already. But they sense that declaring Plan A to be a failure would have very serious negative consequences for themselves personally. Despite their private views, these individuals are willing to comply with the organizationally acceptable position that Plan A is still the current plan. Let me call one of these people Charles ("C" for Compliant).

Charles is concerned about someone whom he regards as having considerable power over him (call her Pam for Powerful). Charles believes, with evidence, that Pam is dedicated to the success of Plan A. Charles also believes, again with evidence, that expressing his true beliefs about Plan A would displease Pam. He believes that if he spoke his mind, Pam would take steps to discredit Charles or otherwise harm his career. He believes that Pam would not be reluctant to kill the messenger.

And so, Charles confronts a lose-lose decision. He can keep mum about Plan A, and ride with its failure, or he can express his view that Plan A has failed, and endure the wrath of Pam. Both options lead to trouble. In the end, Charles continues to support the status quo (Plan A) as many people would.

One might ask, "If Plan A is failing so obviously, and Charles can see it, why doesn't Pam see it?" Naturally, there can be many possible explanations. Two examples: Pam doesn't see it because she's a workplace perfectionist; or Pam does see it, but she has a personal Plan B.

One problem probably remains for any team that has a Plan B that hasn't yet been invoked. Most Plan Bs I've seen had never been subjected to the close scrutiny that was applied to Plan A. And most Plan Bs have sat on the shelf, ignored, since the day Plan A was officially declared active. The consequence of these two conditions is that Plan B might not be complete. And it's probably outdated. Before it's invoked, and before anyone starts advocating for a switch to Plan B, it's probably worth taking a look at Plan B to see how real it actually is.  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

Footnotes

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:

What You See Isn't Always What You Get

We all engage in interpreting the behavior of others, usually without thinking much about it. Whenever you notice yourself having a strong reaction to someone's behavior, consider the possibility that your interpretation has outrun what you actually know.

Beyond Our Control

When bad things happen, despite our plans and our best efforts, we sometimes feel responsible. We failed. We could have done more. But is that really true? Aren't some things beyond our control?

Some Hidden Costs of Business Fads

Adopting business fads is an expensive organizational pattern, with costs that extend beyond what can be measured by the chart of accounts most organizations use. Here are some examples of the hidden costs of business fads.

On Advice and Responsibility

Being asked for advice can be an affirming experience, but actually giving advice can sometimes entail risk. How can this happen, and what choices do we have?

Narcissistic Behavior at Work: I

Briefly, when people exhibit narcissistic behavior they're engaging in activity that systematically places their own interests and welfare ahead of the interests and welfare of anyone or anything else. It's behavior that threatens the welfare of the organization and everyone employed there.

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