On Planning in Plan-Hostile Environments: I

A plan-hostile environment is one in which executing most kinds of plans — strategic plans, project plans, employee development plans, whatever — all are unexpectedly difficult to execute. The difficulties are of such variety that few plans can be executed as intended. After execution begins, replanning and rescheduling, often multiple times, are common occurrences. In some cases, replanning is necessary even before execution begins.

One fundamental issue underlying such difficulties is that the lifetime of any knowledge of the plan's environment is much shorter than the time required to develop the plan. As a consequence, some of the assumptions inherent in the plan become invalid by the time the plan becomes available for execution. In effect, the organization is unable to cycle through its OODA loop fast enough. See "OODA at Work," Point Lookout for April 6, 2011, for more.

How plan-hostile environments differ from turbulent environments

In organizations that harbor plan-hostile
environments, the lifetime of knowledge
of a plan's environment is much shorter
than the time required to develop the planPlan-hostile environments present to planners difficulties that transcend the more familiar obstacles of merely turbulent environments. Turbulent environments are challenging, to be sure, but planning with flexibility, adaptability, and risk mitigation can often produce success. Moreover, turbulence has randomness that sometimes works in favor of our plans. By contrast, in plan-hostile environments there are agents, factors, and processes in place that seem almost to seek out a plan's vulnerabilities to attack and disrupt execution.

For example, suppose that in a plan-hostile environment a plan depends on the availability of some Key person I'll call Kate. And further, suppose that the leading Advocate of the plan, Adam, has a political Rival I'll call Ralph. Then Ralph (Adam's Rival) might take or create opportunities to occupy Kate (the Key person) by making her a central figure in another effort, thus rendering her unavailable for any role in Adam's plan. If Adam tries to insulate his plan from any form of such resource contention, he would need knowledge in depth of all possible contentions, including both innocent and malevolent contention situations. The focus of Adam's planning effort then becomes largely political.

Although organizational politics cannot account for all difficulties in planning, its effects are significant enough to merit early consideration.

Internal political factors that affect plan development or execution

In plan-hostile environments attention to substantive issues is constrained in ways that affect both planners and teams charged with plan execution. Here are three examples of these mechanisms.

Scope creep

When a project S (for Successful) does seem to be executing successfully, there arises a temptation to combine it with another projects T (for Troubled) that might not be faring so well. Motives vary. Some want to conceal T's problems. Others hope to resolve T's problems by entrusting T to S's management team, which seems to be more capable. Scope creep can overwhelm judgment, and whatever plan was already in place for S must now be revised to accommodate the combination with T.

The combined team must now execute both plans. As if that's not disruptive enough, they must also sort out T's troubles and develop a plan for S+T. Even though the prospects might be dim for having T become successful, the hope is that the combined project will remain healthy enough to at least conceal T's poor health. See "Some Causes of Scope Creep," Point Lookout for September 4, 2002, for more.

A focus on project management rather than people management

In practice, project management is actually people management. When organizations focus only on projects and the metrics that measure project performance, they put at risk employee development and employee welfare. They leave unattended such practices as bullying, favoritism, discrimination, and toxic conflict. Turnover, working conditions, and ultimately project performance can all suffer.

Because the success rate for project plans is so poor in the plan-hostile environment, people focus on project metrics instead of personal performance or team performance, which many regard as only indirectly responsible for project results.

One-size-fits-all policies

Policies that confuse uniformity with fairness risk creating indefensible situations that erode respect for organizational leadership. For example, requiring two days per week of presence in office is ridiculous in organizations in which nearly all meetings are videoconferences.

Desperate to improve the success rate for plans, Management reaches ever more deeply into the organization looking for adjustments — any adjustments — that might make plans more effective. But on such a large scale, they can't grasp the details well enough to formulate policies that make sense.

Last words

I'll continue next time with items such as:

• Miscommunication
• Unrealistic schedules
• Ambiguity of roles and responsibilities
• Reorganization(s)
• Past errors unaddressed
• Factions and polarization

I'm sure there are more. rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend them along and I'll put them in the queue.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience is rare. In part, it's rare because we usually strive only for adequacy, not for greatness. We do this because we don't fully appreciate the returns on greatness. Not only does it feel good to be part of great team — it pays off. Check out my Great Teams Workshop to lead your team onto the path toward greatness. More info

More about scope creep

Some Causes of Scope Creep  [September 4, 2002]

When we suddenly realize that our project's scope has expanded far beyond its initial boundaries — when we have that how-did-we-ever-get-here feeling — we're experiencing the downside of scope creep. Preventing scope creep starts with understanding how it happens.

Scopemonging: When Scope Creep Is Intentional  [August 22, 2007]

Scope creep is the tendency of some projects to expand their goals. Usually, we think of scope creep as an unintended consequence of a series of well-intentioned choices. But sometimes, it's much more than that.

More Indicators of Scopemonging  [August 29, 2007]

Scope creep — the tendency of some projects to expand their goals — is usually an unintended consequence of well-intentioned choices. But sometimes, it's part of a hidden agenda that some use to overcome budgetary and political obstacles.

The Perils of Political Praise  [May 19, 2010]

Political Praise is any public statement, praising (most often) an individual, and including a characterization of the individual or the individual's deeds, and which spins or distorts in such a way that it advances the praiser's own political agenda, possibly at the expense of the one praised.

The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Task Duration  [June 22, 2011]

Much of what we call work is as futile and irrelevant as rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. We continue our exploration of futile and irrelevant work, this time emphasizing behaviors that extend task duration.

The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Strategy  [June 29, 2011]

Much of what we call work is about as effective and relevant as rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. We continue our exploration of futile and irrelevant work, this time emphasizing behaviors related to strategy.

Ground Level Sources of Scope Creep  [July 18, 2012]

We usually think of scope creep as having been induced by managerial decisions. And most often, it probably is. But most project team members — and others as well — can contribute to the problem.

Scope Creep and the Planning Fallacy  [February 19, 2014]

Much is known about scope creep, but it nevertheless occurs with such alarming frequency that in some organizations, it's a certainty. Perhaps what keeps us from controlling it better is that its causes can't be addressed with management methodology. Its causes might be, in part, psychological.

Scope Creep, Hot Hands, and the Illusion of Control  [February 26, 2014]

Despite our awareness of scope creep's dangerous effects on projects and other efforts, we seem unable to prevent it. Two cognitive biases — the "hot hand fallacy" and "the illusion of control" — might provide explanations.

Scope Creep and Confirmation Bias  [March 12, 2014]

As we've seen, some cognitive biases can contribute to the incidence of scope creep in projects and other efforts. Confirmation bias, which causes us to prefer evidence that bolsters our preconceptions, is one of these.

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:

The High Cost of Low Trust: I

We usually think of Trust as one of those soft qualities that we would all like our organizational cultures to have. Yet, truly paying attention to Trust at work is rare, in part, because we don't fully appreciate what distrust really costs. Here are some of the ways we pay for low trust.

Responding to Threats: I

Threats are one form of communication common to many organizational cultures, especially as pressure mounts. Understanding the varieties of threats can be helpful in determining a response that fits for you.

Capability Inversions and the Dunning-Kruger Effect

A capability inversion occurs when the person in charge of an effort is far less knowledgeable about the work involved or its purpose than are the people doing that work. In capability inversions, the Dunning-Kruger effect can intensify group dysfunction, sometimes severely disrupting the effort.

An Introduction to Workplace Ostracism

We say that a person has been ostracized from a group when that person is ignored by the members of that group or excluded from participating in that group's activities, and when we might otherwise expect that person to be a member. Workplace ostracism can have expensive consequences for the enterprise.

Asymmetric Group Debate

Group debates at work can be difficult when the domains of expertise of participants don't overlap by much. Communicating is possible, though, if we believe in our shared goals and if we tackle the hard parts without an audience.

See also Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming June 25: Meandering Monologues in Meetings: Engagement

In a meeting, a meandering monologue has taken over when someone speaks at length with no sign of coming to a clear point, and little of evident value. This behavior reduces engagement on the part of other attendees, thereby limiting the meeting's value to the organization. Available here and by RSS on June 25.

And on July 2: The True Costs of Contractors

Among the more commonly cited reasons for hiring contractors instead of direct employees is cost savings. But are these savings real? Direct compensation, including perks and benefits, might favor the contractor arrangement, but indirect costs tell another story. Available here and by RSS on July 2.

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