In the Western world, most organizational development consultants take planning for granted. Whether it’s a detailed master plan, an MS Project file, or a simple Excel spreadsheet, having a plan is seen as basic professional practice. Plans define deliverables, clarify roles and responsibilities, and set timelines.
At first glance, the value of planning seems obvious. It brings order, focus, and direction. One would expect everyone to agree on its importance. Yet that assumption does not always hold.
Through my work, I’ve learned that planning carries very different meanings for different people. Some view plans as an illusion of control—tools used by those who believe they can fully manage their environment. Others see plans as barriers to creativity, arguing that real change comes from ingenuity and improvisation, not rigid frameworks. There are also those who feel that planning is more about control than about actually getting things done.
A client in Egypt once taught me an Arabic saying that captures this mindset perfectly:
“Isal el rafik kabl el tariq” — Ask who you will travel with, not which road you will take.
Many people I work with see planning not as a help, but as an unhealthy fixation.
Because I am personally disciplined and naturally inclined to plan, these ideas were difficult for me to accept at first. But once I did, the impact was immediate. Collaboration improved dramatically in places like India, Taiwan, Israel, Thailand, and Indonesia.
By acknowledging different assumptions about planning—especially when working with Germans, Americans, Brits, and Dutch alongside cultures that value planning less—I was able to adapt my approach and achieve far better results.
Bottom line, some cultures assume that they have more control of the universe. These cultures PLAN how to take the reins into their own hands. Other cultures assume that the world is chaotic and impossible to control, thus the need to improvise and adapt as we march along.
In my role as a Canadian professional engineering consultant involved in all aspects of project proposals, management and implementation, I had the opportunity to work with multi ethnic colleagues in the course carrying out my mandates. The governing rules were “if you fail to plan, you plan to fail” as well as ” the devil is in the details”. Planning is an exhaustive exercise that directly relates to success and does not constrain creativity, but rather encourages it. The foreign educated engineers that I had worked with didn’t have to be convinced about the necessity of planning. Outside of this particular profession however, the value accorded to proper planning is the exception rather than the rule.. it’s a lot easier to forgo the difficult planning process and ascribe the fate of a project to cosmic forces.
Of course I agree with you. And you are correct… This happens outside the engineering domain
Allon, In my years with the Chicago YMCAs, planning was a critical part of the change process. It wasn’t a matter of the plans themselves. It was the changes in thinking created by the process.
The YMCA was the archetypal legacy organization, doing the same things in the same ways for 120 years. Everyone came up through the ranks & learned to do things “the Y way”. We had to take them to a place where they could recognize & respond to market changes & think in different ways. They were so focused on putting out the next fire that they couldn’t think in ways to avert the fires.
The changes in thinking created by the planning & other processes I designed & facilitated created those changes in thinking which were the foundation of all the change that occurred at the Ys.