When working with strategic leaders, we invariably discuss the concept that strategy (a plan) is best developed ‘backward’ and executed ‘forward’. As outlined in many US Army publications, mostly within the context of Troop Leading Procedures, ‘Reverse Planning’ (also known as ‘Backwards Planning’) is a process that starts with the operation’s desired result and the systematic identification of the steps that it will take to achieve that result, working backward in time. Practically, leaders begin by identifying the ‘last’ critical task they believe must be completed to achieve the desired result, then the ‘next to last’ task that leads to that step, and so on, until they reach the ‘first’ step that would initiate the plan, ‘stepping off’ from their current status.
Once the ‘backwards plan’ is in place, the organization executes the plan ‘forward’ with the first step identified to ‘step off’. From my experience, one of the greatest challenges a leader will (will, not might) face is when their organization’s strategy ‘does not go as planned’. The great military strategist Mike Tyson, in my opinion, summed up this concept well in his now famous quotation, ‘Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth.’
‘Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth.’ – Mike Tyson
Cognitive Dissonance in Leadership
When unforeseen[1] dynamics (punches) arise that cause our initial plan to ‘not work’ or ‘take us off course’, it is my supposition that the result for leaders is the experience of Cognitive Dissonance. We discussed the same cognitive dissonance in a blog post earlier this year that looked at what happens when our organization’s practices do not match stated beliefs. In this instance, our beliefs in ‘how to get there’ from our backwards planning are ‘not matching up’ with what we are experiencing when we execute that same plan.
As stated in the peer reviewed article on A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance by Maike Neuhaus Ph.D, “cognitive dissonance is not necessarily a bad thing” as it “is a mechanism that alerts us when we are not acting in line with our beliefs, attitudes, or plans.” This internal alert that leader’s ‘sense’ is the result of our beliefs (which informed our plans) NOT acting in line with what we are currently experiencing. When we get ‘punched in the mouth’ and recognize that the plan is not getting us where we want to go, then we as leaders must look for effective ways to reduce the dissonance through a re-evaluation of the original plan (and the beliefs that informed the plan).
Cognitive dissonance leads to the motivation to reduce the dissonance. The stronger the discrepancy between thoughts, the greater the motivation to reduce it (Festinger, 1957).
Strategies to Manage Cognitive Dissonance
This re-evaluation is critical as we now have actionable intelligence (the punch) that we did not have during the planning process. The challenge is that, if not careful, leaders may attempt to reduce the dissonance in ineffective ways. Dr. Festinger identified four strategies that we as humans utilize to reduce the discomfort of cognitive dissonance:
- We change our behavior so that it is consistent with the other thought.
- We change one of the dissonant thoughts in order to restore consistency.
- We add other (consonant) thoughts that justify or reduce the importance of one thought and therefore diminish the inconsistency.
- We trivialize the inconsistency altogether, making it less important and less relevant.
Effective vs. Ineffective Responses to Setbacks
With respect to Strategy 1 above, leaders can guide the organization through a ‘punch in the mouth’ by making decisions to deviate in the short term from the original plan in order to identify the shortest path to get around the punch and back on track. When not executed well, leaders may abandon the initial plan altogether, go in an entirely different direction that is not as well thought out, and have their organization feel as if they are being ‘tossed back and forth by waves’ and ‘carried about by every wind’ from the latest self-help book or buzzword.
When executed well, Strategy 2 will allow us to retrospectively challenge our original beliefs that underpinned the original plan so that we can alter those beliefs that are not proving to be true. Once those beliefs are updated, we can then update our ‘backwards plan’ to alter the path to achieve our desired result and then execute forward with the updated plan.
When Strategy 2 is not executed well, it may lead to a detrimental Strategy 3 which causes leaders to look for data points that support their original beliefs (confirmation bias) to ‘justify’ themselves and reduce the importance of what is not going well and causing our organization to receive punches. In contrast, an effective Strategy 3 would allow us to seek out diverse critical thoughts that reveal how we may avoid future punches.
If not careful, leaders may implement Strategy 4, by minimizing the fact that the plan is not getting us where we want to go and ‘double down’ on the original plan. If this re-emphasis on the very step that caused us to run into a punch results in even more punches, then leaders are valuing their original beliefs over the desire to get our organization to the result without getting punched!
Empowering Organizations for Resilient Decision-Making
Ultimately, it is our desire at MRA to stand shoulder to shoulder with strategic leaders so that cognitive dissonance is used as a means to make better decisions on how to adjust plans to avoid punches and empower the organization for decisive action at every level to achieve their desired results. And to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that not even a punch from Mike Tyson himself can stop their organization from making the very decisions required to get them to where they want to go!
If you’re interested in exploring how we can assist your organization, we invite you to reach out for a complimentary consultation. Let’s discuss how we can help you achieve your desired outcomes and move forward with confidence.
[1] This article assumes that our leaders we work with have completed our recommended Pre-Mortem Analysis that follows the Pre-Mortem Method of Risk Assessment, developed by Dr. Gary Klein in 2007, a proactive approach to identifying potential risks in a project. As a result, a punch in the mouth would be outside of the deliberate efforts to ‘see as many punches as possible’ prior to plan execution.
