Everyone agrees that preparation is absolutely critical. Whether it’s a speaking presentation, a report you are writing, a sales meeting, or something else, preparation is a major key to success. Usually when people talk about preparation, they are talking about follow-up; perseverance; getting the facts; doing the research needed; and practice, practice, practice. But even if you do all of these things and feel fully prepared, are you really?
Unfortunately, you can be perfectly well prepared for what you expect. But then you may find you have done all this great preparation and things are not what they seem. You are hit with the unexpected and unpredictable. You encounter the "worst-case scenario" and you didn’t consider it a possibility at the time. The experience is a little like spending weeks and weeks preparing for a big exam only to find out that the exam will be on another subject that you haven’t prepped for at all. Likewise, in the workplace, you might get all that research data your manager wants, only to discover the company’s marketing program has changed, so he wants the research about something else. Or maybe you think you are giving an informal presentation to a small group in your office and are fully prepared for that only to find the arrangements changed. Instead of talking to a small group, you are now one of the featured presenters at the company’s upcoming conference.
That’s why contingency planning is critical; you can think of alternate possibilities, even fairly unlikely ones, so you are prepared for the unexpected—and are even ready for still other unpredictable possibilities should they occur. In fact, often such unexpected events occur because people don’t communicate their expectations clearly in the first place or they later change their minds at the last minute, whether because of changed circumstances or on whim. Even with the best of advance discussion on your part, you may still be left in the dark confronting the unexpected and unknown—a problem compounded when you are dealing with difficult people who are poor communicators or unpredictable themselves. But at least preparation for contingencies can help you shift more quickly and with less pain to Plan B, C, or X, Y, Z.
Otherwise, like Emily, you might be caught short and have to scramble around after the fact to see if you can repair the fallout from not being prepared for the unexpected. Emily was a department manager in a small graphics and Web site design company, and she handled most of the purchasing of outside supplies and services, including from one very large corporation—let’s call it ABC Enterprises—which provided the company’s software for all of its operations, from product design to accounting.
Everything seemed routine and business-as-usual until Emily’s company decided to expand into a larger office suite in the building, and that meant moving their computers and setting them up in another network configuration. When Emily called to arrange for the new system, ABC’s salesman, Bert, was only too happy to help with the order, including suggesting a new line of equipment designed to produce even speedier connections in network systems. The price would be a little higher, but Bert persuaded her that the speed and organizing features of the networking software would be worth the extra cost. Thus, after hearing Bart explain how the old system was set up and what would be moved where to create the new linked system, and hearing his assurances that he knew exactly what she needed, she gave him the okay to order the equipment.
That’s when problems started that would go on over the next three months. First, some of the technicians who came over had not been fully trained in how to install the new equipment. After spending a couple of hours going through the company’s offices, they gave up, unable to install anything, though they left several boxes of equipment they had planned to install. Then, when a trained technician arrived, he discovered that the equipment that the first technicians had left for the installation wasn’t the correct type for Emily’s company, so they had to order new equipment, resulting in further delays. Meanwhile, the company’s operations were seriously hampered, since while awaiting the new software, some equipment had been disconnected from a central network terminal, so information had to be transferred manually from computer to computer.
In short, the process was a big mess, and after about two weeks of mix-ups, Emily decided to start carefully documenting what happened, along with calculating the time lost and expenses incurred. She also sent copies to the managers at ABC Enterprises, and after four weeks, when the software system still wasn’t installed because of more delays due to sending equipment to the wrong address, she got another salesman, Jerry, to work on straightening out the orders and getting it right. Even Jerry’s manager, Tony, had to intervene to help in untangling the past order information and figuring out what Emily’s company really needed to link up all their systems and integrate them with the new software.
Afterwards, Emily began the process of getting compensation for her company’s losses and damages, turning first to the company’s own insurance company, and then asking Tony at ABC to help her file a claim. But now after being so helpful, Tony said he couldn’t do anything more to assist and referred her to ABC’s CEO, who passed her claim on to the company’s risk management division, which promptly lost her claim for a month. After they found it, they were slow to respond, finally sending her a letter that said in essence, "We’re sorry but we are responsible only for replacing any faulty equipment."
Eventually, after more fruitless attempts to contact a high-up ABC official to work out a settlement, Emily gave up. She decided to take the matter to small claims court and divide up the claim to cover the different types of delays and damage caused by different technicians. At least, the compensation might provide some small consolation, and she figured that if she showed she was serious by filing a suit, ABC would come around and offer a settlement. After all, she reasoned, it would be costly for any of their executives to prepare a case and come to court from their headquarters, about one and a half hours away by car. But when no settlement offer was forthcoming, she figured she’d have to go to court.
If it came to that, at least she would be carefully prepared. She gathered documents showing a paper trail of wrong deliveries, assembled a chronology of the many problems and delays caused by the untrained technicians and delivery of wrong equipment, and even collected examples of other individuals and companies who complained about their problems with ABC. She used the Internet to do much of her research, and also articles about the company from the local paper. In addition, she found a news group where many participants complained about ABC Enterprises, and downloaded records of several successful suits against them that had been posted on-line. In her view, the case was a fairly straightforward one, with no dispute about the facts. After all, she figured, besides the long paper trail of documents, she had a detailed chronology of events that Tony and others at ABC had already seen, without raising any questions about its accuracy.
Thus, when it finally came time to go to court, Emily felt very confident she was fully prepared. She even thought her binder with all the documents, table of contents, and list of major points in her case would be compelling, particularly when she saw the slim file folders that Tony from ABC brought with him to court. As a result, in giving her presentation, she handed her big binder to the judge, but rather than walk the judge through her detailed chronology, since small claims presentations are usually limited to a few minutes and she expected no dispute about facts, she presented a broad overview. She touched briefly on how she repeatedly encountered untrained technicians or technicians with the wrong equipment, then focused on what she thought would be the hardest to prove—the number of hours her company lost and the hours she spent dealing with the problem. This way she could turn the hours spent and lost multiplied by what she usually earned per hour into a total amount of compensation requested for damages.
When it was time for Tony to respond, he read from a written statement in which he disputed her account of events date by date; attributed many statements to her that she was certain she did not say; and spoke with such anger and hostility toward her that she was floored. Before Tony had been so helpful in trying to help her sort things out. But now he hit her hard with his accusations, arguing that she was confused and caused her own installation delays by not knowing what was in her system and what was needed. Date by date, he went down his list, quoting statements she had made, even prefacing some with the comment: "and that’s in her own words." But the words hadn’t been hers. Again and again, his statements, spoken with such authority, contradicted her own chronology. What hurt even more was his summary conclusion: "So you can see, Ms. Anthony has simply brought these two cases to cover up her own confusion in placing the incorrect orders, which is what caused all of these delays and her company’s losses. Instead, she has sued us to get us to pay for her own mistakes and to get our software system at no charge."
When he concluded, after 15 minutes of reading his prepared statement like a prosecutor in a criminal case, she felt so stunned that she could barely reply, except to say she felt floored and didn’t know how to answer his response, which she said sounded like fiction. "He made so many false accusations. I don’t know where to begin. And I didn’t go through my own detailed chronology, because I thought there wouldn’t be any question about the basic facts."
But obviously there was such a question, and since Emily had only heard Tony’s statements and now saw the judge looking at her with glazed eyes after Tony’s long detailed reading, she felt he wouldn’t be receptive to another detailed presentation. Besides she felt drained and defeated, so she ended by simply saying: "I wasn’t confused. You’ll see in my chronology how the first salesman kept getting it wrong."
Yet, would the judge ever see this? While the judge scooped up her binder with her chronology and Tony’s thin file, saying: "I’ll take the case under submission," she wondered if he would actually read her chronology or give it proper consideration. After all, Tony’s presentation had been so forceful and damning. And all his lies. She certainly hadn’t expected or been prepared for that, since he had once been so helpful. Yet now he had turned on her like a pit viper, spewing poison. It was only after she left the courtroom that Emily began to realize that she had been blindsided by Tony’s lies about her, which questioned her honesty, motives, and integrity in even bringing the case.
What Should Emily Have Done and What Should She Do Now?
Here are some possibilities. In Emily’s place, what would you have done or do now and why? What do you think the outcomes of these different options would be?
Try to talk to Tony, as well as ABC’s risk management department, to work out a settlement, if he has the authority to participate in the process.
Look at the mix-ups that happened from Tony’s point of view to consider how he and ABC might try to get out of taking the blame.
Document not only what happened to show delays and damage but document your conversations with Tony and others in ABC.
Besides writing a letter to the judge about Tony’s lies, share this information with the media, since this could be a big story involving a big company. At least you would feel you gained justice, whatever happens at court.
Send a complaint letter about Tony and ABC to various regulatory agencies; maybe they’ll take action against ABC.
Other?
Thus, while Emily had prepared carefully, she had never contemplated the possibility that Tony might question her version of the facts or that he might lie to protect ABC from any liability. She was in fact fully prepared—but not for the right thing, not for the unpredictable. She had been so certain the case would go one way, and when it turned into something else, she didn’t know how to respond to that.
Instead, Emily should have carefully checked her assumptions about the basis of her case and the possible counter-arguments that might be used against her. Then, too, she shouldn’t have been so trusting that Tony was the nice guy he seemed, since he was nice when trying to help her correct a problem his own company had caused and reduce any potential damage claims. But once Emily filed suit again ABC and his company refused responsibility for any damages, he became the opposition. Now the situation was different, and Emily should have considered that his attitude toward her might change along with his role. Though the judge did actually take the time to read Emily’s materials and she did win the case, she spent an agonizing two months waiting and worrying about how she had probably lost the case. In many small claims cases, a judge might decide the case on the spot without reading anything.
By the same token, when you’re facing a challenge such as going to court or doing anything that involves substantial preparation, consider what you are preparing for. Check out any assumptions. Engage in scenario thinking, where you consider different possibilities. Ask yourself "what if" questions, think about how you might respond under different situations, and prepare accordingly, so you are ready if the situation changes. Such thinking of different possibilities will also help you be more nimble on your feet generally, because you will have already considered the unexpected and unpredictable. You will be more able to adapt whatever the circumstances.
But what if you haven’t prepared properly for the unpredictable? Is there anything you can do now? Well, maybe there is if you do some creative thinking and shift your preparation in another direction.
Today’s Take-Aways:
- When you least expect it, the unexpected will occur; so prepare for the unexpected in case you don’t get what you expect.
- When situations change, so can people; so be prepared forpeople to change their attitudes and their actions when they are placed in different situations and play different roles.
- Your preparations are only as good as your predictions, andsometimes your predictions can be wrong. So prepare for the unpredictable, too.
- Just because you know things happened a certain way doesn’tmean that others know that or want things to be that way. So be prepared that someone else may tell a different story, whether he believes it or just wants others to believe his point of view.
- Don’t expect people always to tell the truth, even in court. If there’s an incentive to lie and a good chance of not getting caught, people often will—so be prepared for that, too.