Flexibility doesn't mean zero planning.
Over the years, I have occasionally described myself as a control freak at work, not in the sense that I need to make every decision or dictate every detail, but because I have always felt uncomfortable when people begin executing a piece of work without first agreeing on a clear plan.
If there is one thing that consistently raises my stress level, it is ambiguity.
We often hear that good leaders should be flexible, adaptable, and willing to change course when circumstances require it.
However, I disagree that flexibility means zero planning. Structure matters a lot to me.
Therefore, I believe I am not reacting to a change of plans but rather to uncertainty that could have been reduced through proper or structured planning.
Am I planning for too much?
Whenever I delegate work or work with a team, I naturally gravitate towards a structure: defining the objective, the scope, the timeline, and what the outcome should look like before we begin.
I like knowing who is responsible for which part of the work, what decisions still need to be made, what assumptions we are making at the start, and when the deadlines are.
I have occasionally wondered whether that makes me difficult to work with.
From my observation, there are people who seem perfectly comfortable beginning with only a broad objective. They start doing, observe what happens, and refine the work along the way. Sometimes they produce excellent results despite having no detailed plan at the beginning.
I have always admired that ability because it is so different from the way my own mind works.
If someone gives me an objective that feels abstract to my understanding, my first instinct is not to accept it.
My first instinct is to ask structured questions:
Who are the decision-makers? What exactly are we trying to achieve? What are the expected outcomes? What constraints are we working with? What is our approach if issues arise?
To me, those questions are not obstacles to getting work done. They are part of the work.
Isn't structure necessary?
One misconception about people who enjoy planning is that we dislike change. That has never been true for me.
In my line of work, Google updates its algorithms, clients change priorities, budgets get revised, top management changes, and campaigns that looked promising last FY may no longer be relevant today.
I have no problem changing direction when new information becomes available; what unsettles me the most is changing direction when the direction was ambiguous in the first place.
There is a difference between adapting because circumstances have changed versus improvising because no one thought through the approach before starting.
The first is flexibility; the second is often avoidable confusion.
To be fair, being structured isn't about predicting everything.
One of the lessons I have gradually learned is that planning and certainty are not the same thing.
A good plan does not guarantee success, nor does it prevent unexpected events from happening. The purpose of structured planning, at least from my perspective, is to reduce the amount of unnecessary uncertainty.
When a team has already agreed on the objective, the scope, the assumptions, and the expected outcome, everyone has a common reference point. If something changes halfway through, the discussion becomes much easier because people understand what is changing and why.
Without that shared understanding, every adjustment feels like starting the conversation from the beginning.
Perhaps that is why I have always felt more comfortable investing time in planning than spending even more time correcting avoidable misunderstandings later.
Some people think before they act. Others think by acting.
Recently, I started wondering whether this is simply a difference in how people process information.
Some people, like me, organise our thoughts internally before taking action. We ask questions, identify risks, build a mental framework, and only then begin executing.
Others seem to discover the solution through the act of doing. They are comfortable taking the first step without knowing every subsequent step because they trust themselves to adjust along the way.
I guess neither approach is inherently right or wrong; perhaps both approaches are necessary.
If everyone gravitates towards structures and systems the way I do, projects might become over-analysed before anything ever gets started.
If everyone prefers to figure things out as they went, there might not be enough structure to keep larger projects consistent.
Perhaps the real challenge is not deciding which style is better, but recognising that different people reduce uncertainty in different ways.
Maybe this is why I don't understand "just wing it".
For years, I interpreted phrases such as "We'll figure it out" or "Let's just start first" as a lack of preparation.
I am beginning to wonder whether that was an unfair assumption.
Perhaps some people genuinely think more clearly once they begin moving.
Just as I need structure before I can act confidently, they may need action before they can see the structure.
Understanding that has helped me become more patient with people whose working style differs from mine.
At the same time, it has also helped me understand myself better.
I don't think I need control for the sake of control. I think I simply find comfort in reducing ambiguity wherever possible.
A plan, to me, has never been a rigid document that predicts the outcome.
A plan is a shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve, why we are approaching it that way, and how we will recognise whether we have succeeded.
The plan may change tomorrow. In fact, it probably will. But I would still rather begin with one than begin with none.
Perhaps that doesn't make me a control freak after all.
Perhaps it simply means I think in systems.
