17.5 Formal Organizational Planning in Practice

Encouraging Planning

In spite of the advantages to be gained by planning, many managers resist it. Some feel that there is not enough time to plan or that it is too complicated and costs too much. Others worry about the possible consequences of failing to reach the goals they set. Instead of preplanning, sometimes referred to as blueprint planning (that is, formulating outcome and action statements before moving forward), many managers simply fail to plan or at best engage in in-process planning (they read events and think about the next step just before acting). In-process planning works extremely well when individuals have a sense of what it is that they want to achieve and can improvise as they move forward in a sea of uncertainty and turbulence. This is much like skilled hockey players relying on their instincts, reading the defense, and improvising as they move up the ice and toward the opponent’s net. This process often works better than attempting to implement a detailed preplan, as often characterizes plays in football.

In situations where we want to encourage preplanning, certain techniques facilitate the process:

• Develop an organizational climate that encourages planning.
• Top managers support lower-level managers’ planning activities—for example, by providing such resources as personnel, computers, and funds—and serve as role models through their own planning activities.
• Train people in planning.
• Create a reward system that encourages and supports planning activity and carefully avoids punishment for failure to achieve newly set goals.
• Use plans once they are created.

In order for managers to invest the time and energy needed to overcome resistance to planning, they must be convinced that planning does in fact pay off.

Does Planning Really Pay Off?

Managers of organizations in complex and unstable environments may find it difficult to develop meaningful plans, yet it is precisely conditions of environmental complexity and instability that produce the greatest need for a good set of organizational plans. Yet the question remains, does planning really pay off?

We know from our earlier discussion that setting goals is an important part of the planning process. Today, much is known about what characterizes effective individual goals. (We discuss this issue in greater detail later in this chapter.) Although group and organizational goals have been studied less, it is probably safe to assume that most of our knowledge about individual goals also applies to group and organizational goals. The research suggests that effective organizational goals should (1) be difficult but reachable with effort, (2) be specific and clearly identify what is desired, (3) be accepted by and have the commitment of those who will help achieve them, (4) be developed by employees if such participation will improve the quality of the goals and their acceptance, and (5) be monitored for progress regularly.

While the evidence is not abundant, studies suggest that firms that engage in planning are more financially successful than those that do not.²⁹ For example, one study reports that the median return on investment for a five-year period is 17.1 percent for organizations engaged in strategic planning, versus 5.9 percent for those that do not.³⁰ Similarly, of 70 large commercial banks, those that had strategic planning systems outperformed those that did not.³¹

Although planning clearly has observable benefits, it can be expensive. The financial commitment can be large for organizations with a formal planning staff. Even so, research suggests that planning is warranted.

The Location of the Planning Activity

Classical management thinking advocates a separation of “planning” and “doing.” According to this school of thought, managers plan for technical core employees and formulate most of the plans for the upper levels of the organization, with little participation from lower-level managers and workers. In contrast, behavioral management theorists suggest involving organization members in drawing up plans that affect them. Implementation of a management-by-objectives program (to be discussed later in this chapter), for example, is one means by which this participative planning can be realized. Researchers at the Tavistock Institute in England promote the idea of self-managed work groups as a means of expanding the level of employee involvement. According to their socio-technical model, work groups assume a major role in planning (as well as in organizing, directing, and controlling) the work assigned to them. Many organizations—for example, the John Lewis Partnership, Volvo, and Motorola—have had successful experiences with employee involvement in planning and controlling activities.³²

Planning Specialists

To keep pace with organizational complexity, technological sophistication, and environmental uncertainty, many organizations use planning specialists. Professional planners develop organizational plans and help managers plan. Boeing and Ford are among the many organizations with professional planning staffs. Planning specialists at United Airlines developed United’s crisis management plan.

Organizations have planning specialists and planning departments in place for a variety of reasons. These specialized roles have emerged because planning is time-consuming and complex and requires more attention than line managers can provide. In rapidly changing environments, planning becomes even more complex and often necessitates the development of contingency plans, once again demanding time for research and special planning skills. At times, effective planning requires an objectivity that managers and employees with vested interests in a particular set of organizational activities cannot provide.

A planning staff’s goals are varied. Their primary responsibility is to serve as planning advisors to top management and to assist lower-level line managers in developing plans for achieving their many and varied organizational objectives. Frequently, they coordinate the complex array of plans created for the various levels within an organization. Finally, a planning staff provides encouragement, support, and skill for developing formal organizational plans.

Exhibit 17.8 Shelf of tide pods Procter & Gamble, the maker of Tide Pods, has faced two issues with its popular new laundry product. Early after its introduction, reports came in that 180 children had visited hospitals after ingesting the colorful pods thinking that they were candy. P&G quickly reacted by making tamper-proof packaging making it more difficult for children to access, adding a nontoxic flavor that would dissuade children from swallowing the pods, and initiating a product information campaign aimed at informing parents about the dangers—overall, a well-orchestrated contingency plan. In 2017, however, P&G began receiving reports about teenagers intentionally swallowing the product in a “pods challenge” that went viral on social media. Whenever notified, P&G decided to contact the teens directly and contact tech companies such as Facebook and YouTube to remove these posts and videos but did not publicize this, fearing that it would only cause more teens to accept the challenge or challenge others. (Credit: Mike Mozart/ flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0))