The Politics of the Dusty Plan
By Sohail
Inayatullah
“The Politics of the Dusty Plan,” Futures Research
Quarterly (Vol. 20, No. 4, 1986).
INTRODUCTION
Planning for
the future in government or in business has never been a gratifying task.
Planners are constantly frustrated in realizing their goals. Among other
complaints, perhaps the most dehabilitating frustration is that plans are
written and then simply discarded to lie on a shelf and gather dust. While the
obvious reasons may be that the plan was poorly done, was too long, was weak in
quantitative analysis, or was overly quantitative, the real reasons may in fact
be the power relationships between the planner and the Chief Executive Officer
and differences in how the plan and the planning process are perceived by the
planner and the CEO.
Arnold Brown
has argued in his article appropriately titled, "Everywhere Planners are in
Pain.1" that the single most important determinate of a successful
planning endeavor is not budget, method, or equipment but the relationship
between the planner and the CEO. In the planning cycle, difficulties arise in
the organizational relationship between the CEO and the planner, that is, there
exists a difference in views between the planner's perception and the CEO's
hope. Brown argues that there must be better lines of communication between the
planner and the CEO.
THE POLITICS OF PLANNING
For Brown, the
planner can reduce his pain by remembering that: "the planner's role is to
provide the means whereby the CEO can plan effectively," that is, the planner
as translator.2 To achieve this translation, most articles in
the planning and futures literature present technical strategies: that is, they
argue for the integration of the left and right brain, the use of common sense
intuitive forecasts and strategies; for increased information through modeling
or novel methodologies such as Delphi or Emerging Issues Analysis3.
While these may help the planner in writing a better plan--as judged the
elegance of the plan itself--these methods have very little to do with the
politics of planning, the implementation of the plan or the organizational
self-awareness that can emerge from a participatory planning process. It is
often the case that "the Boss loved the plan, but nothing came out of it."
Planners remain unaware that the objectives of their plan may be ultimately
different from that of the CEO or the organization itself.
However
differences in objectives between planners and the CEO is not necessarily an
idiosyncratic problem that planners have; rather, it is part of the politics of
the planning process, part of the structure of organizations. It is this
process that I wish to discuss and elaborate. Concretely, I wish to discuss
the politics of the "dusty" plan.
For the
planner, the plan is an expression of his or her vision. Although it includes
ideas and suggestions of line personnel as well as top management, it is still
the planner's work. The planner hopes that through the plan his relationship
will change from researcher (technician) or implementor to advisor or
co-decision-maker. Walter Blass has developed similar categories that describe
this relationship. He talks of "planner as frustrated mechanic" and "planner as
ever the bridesmaid," and finally "planner as meddler or would be king."
However, just
as intellectuals and priests took away power from the monarchy, top executives
fear planners will take away their power. And justifiably so. The planner
certainly understands the organization at an operational and philosophical
level. The planner also through the plan writing process learns about the
organization's history. Through this historical understanding, the planner is
equiped to develop the organization's alternative futures. Writing of the plan
gives power. In industrial culture, the written word is power. Words and
language not only define the world, they create the world and given ownership of
this creation to the writer. The planner thus can create history and future.
This emphasis of the written word is especially true for planners trained in
law.
Blass writes
that "proximity to the seat of power must be handled with humility and reserve.4"
However, even if this is done, the politics of institutional and organizational
relationships will force the CEO to make it clear that he is the planner,
and the planner simply an articulator of his ideas. This is not an easy
realpolitik lesson to acknowledge. Nor is the realization that the best ways to
see one's ideas furthered is to gently include them in conversation such that
the CEO thinks that they are his for such an act acknowledges the vertical
structure of organizational power and the planners lowly place in this
structure.
SYMBOLIC POLITICS
Beyond
organizational power relationships, often the real purpose of the plan as
perceived by the CEO and the planner may be quite different. The plan is a
symbolic document. This is especially so in governmental agencies. The CEO
may simply want to have a document to show a particular body--the state
legislature, or a Federal funding agency, such as the LEAA in the criminal
justice field, or even to stockholders in the private sector--that the
institution has entered the world of modern management. A plan is symbolic of
the effective use of resources. It is a way of saying, "yes we are doing
something about x problem." Agencies use plans to diffuse criticism: that is,
"we are working on it." Even in the private sector, where there is a clear
motive for operations--profit--and a clear result if targets are not met--loss
of marketshare--similar problems exist. Lack of relevance to immediate business
problems is an excuse often used for a shelved plan. However, the intention of
the plan from the view of the CEO may have been simply to impress the board of
directors that modernity had been achieved. In both sectors, plans and planning
are used to obscure deeper organizational problems.
POST-PLAN DEPRESSION
Thus for the
organization, the plan itself, not its content, and especially not its
implementation, is what is important. The planner, however, often sees the plan
as an expression of his vision of the institution's future, the plan becomes an
extension of him or herself. From the planner's perspective, the plan is a
vehicle of change, or organizational revitalization. For the CEO, it may be
simply an expression of prestige. Thus, when the plan is put on the shelf the
planner is dismayed and enters "post-plan depression" . The CEO, of course,
proudly displays the plan on his shelf. Where else should it go? His goal has
been accomplished. Praise has been lavished. Funds received. Criticism
diffused. The knighthood of modern management bestowed.
The CEO
already has a way to do business, to make decisions, to understand the future.
He already has a worldview, a set of priorities, and although he asked for the
plan in the first place, it is certainly not because he wants his world
restructured, reorganized or reprioritized. He may simply want to decrease the
uncertainty of the the external socio-economic environment as well as manage
various difficult to control internal programs and individuals.
Plans are
symbolic. They evoke the future. They accomplish political motives. The
Hawaii Judiciary, for example, has developed a reputation for excellence in
planning largely due to its innovative comprehensive planning documents.
However, while these are used by court planners all over the USA, the Hawaii
Judiciary still has not implemented its plans, nor has it adopted a strategic
plan. They purpose of the planning process, was, in retrospect, simple to
further unify and centralize the courts and to justify future judicial growth.
Plans are also
used within organizations by programs to increase their power or to articulate
their vision. However, this too can be problematic. A plan developed for a
local YMCA, although accurate, elegant and practical turned out to be useless.
Since the Central YMCA was not interested in examining a plan from a lower level
branch, it could not be operationalized at the local level, nor was the larger
purpose of convincing the Central YMCA--that the YMCA's marketshare and prestige
as a premiere national and international volunteer association would continue to
decline--realized. Thus, another dusty plan was added to the garbage heap of
unused plans. Other experiences by colleagues in various state agencies have
followed the same pattern. To gain Federal funding or assuage Legislative
auditors a plan is written. Once written, it is shelved.
UNDERSTANDING THE
PROCESS
However, a
plan gathering dust does not mean that the plan failed, or that the planning
process is worthless. Mere gesturing. Simply planners must see their work in
the overall institutional, organizational sense. Of course, occasionally,
ideas and recommendations are followed through and implemented. But, even here,
the language of implementation rarely acknowledges the source of the ideas, nor
does it follow the logic of the plan. The planner does not become bride or
chief advisor, he or she remains the frustrated technician.
For the
planner to avoid post plan depression, he should understand the politics of the
planning process, that is the motives of the organization and the CEO and the
respective role at the face and symbolic level of the key actors. However, to
confront the CEO and argue that he or she simply wants the plan for symbolic
reasons will not produce the desired results for the planner. The CEO will
simply argue--and will believe it--that the plan is being written to be
implemented. However, his definition of what constitutes implementation may
differ from the planner's. For the CEO, it is he who solves problems, the
planner simply points to future problems to solve.
A WAY OUT?
To begin with,
the planner must also see the writing of the plan and the political consensus
building necessary for a plan to gain acceptance, as a process of organizational
self-learning. The purpose of the plan, then becomes a vehicle for individuals
to discover their role--or lack thereof--in the organization; for CEO's to
discern what really is going on in the organization. This process, however,
often uncovers the organization's dark side--the desire for empire building
among lower level bureaucrats and the desire for organizational growth even when
public--citizens and consumers--demand does not warrant such growth. Thus
CEO's, aware of the chaos and change that might occur when an organization is
aware of its dark side, usually attempt to tightly control the planning process
by only defining the goal of the planner as the production of a written plan
or in a some similar technical and apolitical fashion.
Is there then
a way out? Given the politics of organizations and their vertical power
structures and the desire of humans to control others, to use plans and planning
to expand the power and worldview of their own egos, probably not. The best the
planner can do is understand the politics of who wants what and why on the
conscious personal level and the unconscious institutional level. He could also
simply leave the planner role, start his own business or government, and become
King. Then he would have free reign to impose his or her vision or as the case
often is, ego.
However, if
living in the world of power, wealth, and ego is the central problem, then the
planner in the fashion of the urban guerrilla can attempt to redesign the
organization by creating more horizontal participatory structures. He or she
could also, knowing that real people are suffering in bureaucracies or "in hell
holes known as institutions,"5 as in the case of the criminal
justice or mental health system, become not a writer of plans but a political
actor--a social activist or lobbyist. The planner then must redefine his or her
role, organize and then convince decision-makers through information,
confrontation, debate, and compromise of his or her perspective hoping that the
planning process will force organizational and individual self-awareness.
If this is not
enough or too much, then the planner should work at political and spiritual
transformation on a global and individual levels hitherto unheard of in human
history. In the mean time, the planner can write the plan, and then, as he
receives praise from top management and as the plan is shelved, he can in a
yogic zen-like fashion watch the dust gather and smile. If none of these
alternatives suffice then it may be wise to switch professions. However patho-bureaucracies
and egos in search of power appear to be the rule in this world, not the
exception.
Notes
* Sohail
Inayatullah is senior policy analyst/futurist at the Officeof the Administrative
Director, the Hawaii Judiciary, PO Box 2560,Honolulu, Hawaii 96822. He also is
planning consultant to Mid-Pacific Institute, a private school in Hawaii. The
opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily shared by any
organizations that the author is affiliated with.
1. Arnold Brown,
"Everywhere Planners are in Pain," Long Range Planning, (Vol. 16,
No. 3, 1983), p. 18-21.
2. ibid. p. 19.
3. See Geoffrey
Fletcher, "Key Concepts in the Futures Perspective" World Future Society
Bulletin (January-February, 1979), pp. 25-31.
4. Walter Blass,
"Ten Years of Business Planners,"
Long Range Planning,
(Vol. 16. No. 3, 1983), p. 21-24.
5. Wayne Yasutomi,
Development Disabilities planner. Personal communications sent to the author.