Boldly Go! (But Carefully Plan)

A well-known tenet of improvisational theater says: “Fall first – then, on the way down, figure out what you’re going to do next!” In other words, take action – any action – and trust that your native wit and intuition will solve the problem of what to do afterward.

This is probably the one improv tenet that prospective Improvising Leaders have the most trouble accepting. With visions of Wile E. Coyote firmly in mind, they might say: “What?! Throw myself into the void, without a net, no lifelines? Leave myself to the mercy of hope, luck, and the vagaries of the Universe and the Acme Company? You go first!”

Well, to take a "both-and" approach here, I think we can respect both sentiments – “fling yourself headlong into an uncertain future”AND “keep your ankle tied to a bungee.” Even performance improvisers don’t expect to splat against a blank canvas when they leap. They rely on multiple supporting structures – ideas they’ve used in the past, aspects of their character, rules of the game being played, guidelines such as "Yes And" – as a loose framework within which they can improvise a solution to their onstage challenges.

These thoughts were prompted by an intriguing Harvard Business Review article titled “The Institutional Yes.” The article comprises an interview with Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos in which he describes many ways in which Amazon keeps its sights on both imperatives: “leap” and “aim for the mattress.”

As to the Leap Imperative, Bezos says:

“One useful habit [in setting strategy] is to ask the question ‘Why Not?’ When something seems like an opportunity … you will always get asked the question ‘Why? Why do that?’ But ‘Why not?’ is an equally valid question.”

But if that sounds like the voice of the thrill-seeking, ready-fire-aim, leap-think-act personality, consider Bezos’s follow-on statement:

“And there may be good reasons why not …. In that case, if somebody asked ‘Why not?’ you would say ‘Here’s why not.’”

And even if you proceed, it’s not with reckless abandon, as Bezos makes clear:

“[S]ince the outcomes of all these things are uncertain, if you can figure out how to conduct an experiment, you can make more bets. So the key, really, is reducing the cost of the experiments.”

Experiments. Prototypes. Parallel processes. As you boldly go forth with your strategy, these are your supporting structures, your lifelines, your institutional mattresses. The Improvising Leader must not be afraid to take the leap, but, as Bezos indicates, she also needs to consider how to mitigate the possible dangers of the landing.

Saying "Yes And" to Idea-Chillers

From Day One of their training, performance improvisers are taught to say “Yes And” to onstage offers as a way to build upon each others’ suggestions and create interesting scenes in the moment. For example, if your partner says, “It’s pouring down rain today,” it’s better to respond “Yes, and I forgot my umbrella” than “What do you mean? The sun is shining!” Experience shows that audiences prefer to watch improv performers work together to create a scene, building on each other’s ideas rather than engaging in “Oh yeah?” “Yeah!” types of verbal duels.

Similarly, in business organizations, taking a “Yes And” approach can go a long way toward keeping possibilities open while also maintaining positive relationships. By contrast, adopting a “No” attitude can keep us grounded in the status quo while blocking teamwork right out of the gate.

There are many subtle ways for people to say “No” without actually using the word. Listed below are some phrases that people often use in meetings to immediately pour cold water on new ideas. Chronic use of these Idea Chillers – especially when accompanied by dismissive laughter and sarcasm - is guaranteed to stop innovation in its tracks, perpetuate Groupthink, and belittle and disrespect people. (To counteract the effect of Idea Chillers, try the responses in parentheses.)

“We tried that before and it failed miserably.” (Let’s look at why it didn’t work and do it differently this time.) 

“It's too expensive.” (How much do you think it will cost? What are the costs of standing still?)

“It’ll never work.” (How can we make it work?)

“We've never done it that way.” (The old way may have worked fine in the past – but maybe it’s time for a change.)

“Great idea, but not for us.” (Why aren’t great ideas for us?)

“People just aren’t ready for that.” (How can we gain acceptance for it?)

“Here’s why that won’t work …” (How can we address those challenges?)

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” (If we’re not moving ahead, we’re falling behind.)

“That won’t fly in our culture.” (Let’s consider if it will help us meet our strategic objectives and live our organizational values.)

“I don’t like it.” (What are your concerns, and how can we address them?)

“You have got to be kidding.” (It might sound a little “out there” – a lot of new ideas do.)

“It's all right in theory, but...” (How can we turn theory into reality?)

The British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once said, "Almost all new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when they are first produced."  Whitehead recognized that most creative advances grow from the seed of an idea that might seem strange and even outrageous at first (and thus susceptible to Idea Chillers) but can be nurtured and shaped through open-minded consideration of the possibilities. By taking a “Yes And” approach to ideas – that is, seeking to build on them rather than rejecting them out of hand – we can avoid the Idea Chillers that keep us from progressing as organizations and as individuals.

Resolving (Seeming) Contradictions: The Essence of the Improvising Leader's Art

What’s the one essential skill that any performance improviser must possess? Being quick-witted? Hilariously funny? Totally unflappable?

Many if not most people (especially those who have seen Whose Line Is It Anyway?) probably equate improv with thinking fast and making audiences laugh. When regarded this way, improv can seem as relevant to the lay person’s daily life (especially on the job) as the Three Stooges. But the entertainment factor is really a byproduct of the skills involved in improv – for example, listening fiercely, being completely present, and fully supporting troupe members. These types of skills are most definitely applicable to the everyday effectiveness of organizational “performers.”

But even more central to the improviser’s art (either onstage or in the meeting room) is a skill I call the ability to resolve contradictions.

On the improv stage, contradictions usually take the form of incompatible roles and situations that audiences pitch to the perfomers (e.g., a first-grade teacher as a master drill sergeant). Savvy audiences know that the entertainment comes, not from hearing wisecracks and jokes based on the situation, but from seeing how the performers weave the incongruities of the situation into a seamless scene.

Similarly, a leader’s effectiveness in his organizational performance is largely determined by how well he can resolve the jumble of contradictions presented to him each day. For example:

·         Being drivingly collaborative. Influencing the direction of events – while being open to the influence of others.

·         Being doggedly flexible. Being resolute in following a certain course of action – while staying alert to the need for course corrections as events warrant.

·         Being skeptically accepting. Showing trust in others at the start of a working relationship – before they’ve demonstrated how trustworthy they really are.

·         Being deliberately authentic. Flexing a natural behavioral style in order to adapt to certain situations and certain people – without becoming insincere or manipulative.

A leader’s success in navigating these shoals is largely a matter of shifting her responses between the two incongruous actions at different times to meet the needs of different situations. For example, she might follow her natural take-charge style when urgent action is needed but defer to another person’s ideas and judgment when she’s coaching the person to develop his problem-solving abilities. In most cases, this is preferable to taking the easier course of always applying the same style in all situations with all people – an approach guaranteed to fail at least some percentage of the time.

Just as the successful improv performer can resolve the incongruities of the situation without missing a beat, the successful leader can nimbly shift his actions throughout the day to effectively address each circumstance. At first, a new leader may have to stop and reflect (and often stumble) as he grasps for the best response. But with time, practice, and commitment, he can develop his own inimitable style that handles the ambiguities, dilemmas, and contradictions of organizational life without letting the seams show.

Why Aren't They Doing What I Want Them to Do?

A leader frequently finds herself at wit's end trying to understand why her people won't perform up to expectations. There are really only four possible reasons why people fall short:

1) LACK OF SKILL: They don't know how to carry out the tasks required to perform as expected.

2) LACK OF WILL: They aren't motivated to do their best.

3) BARRIERS: They may know what to do and have the desire to do it, but there's something in the environment that blocks their performance - for example, lack of needed tools and resources.

4) GOAL CONFUSION: They may not actually know what's expected of them, often because it hasn't been clearly communicated to them.

Unfortunately, when a person isn't performing successfully, the most common approach to addressing the situation is to treat it as an issue of skill or will. This approach tends to put the responsibility on the performer to remedy the situation. However, as W. Edwards Deming once said, "A bad system will beat a good person every time." Rather than treating every performance issue as requiring a training solution (skill) or calling for a "fire" to be lit under the performer (will), the leader might also consider the possibility that she bears a big part of the responsibility. After all, Reasons #3 and #4 are factors largely under her control.

A Few Quick Thoughts About Empathy

1) Empathy and sympathy are not the same thing. Sympathy means being affected by the feelings of others. Empathy means making the effort to understand why others think and feel the way they do.

2) Empathizing with someone doesn't necessarily mean you're agreeing with him; 

3) Empathizing doesn't necessarily mean you have to do it the other person's way; 

4) Empathizing gives you a chance to better understand the other person's interests and perspectives so you can potentially find common ground; 

5) Empathizing shows that you care, which in turn creates trust; 

6) Even if you don't pursue the direction the other person wants, if the person feels that you at least gave her a hearing and took her interests into account, she'll be more likely to accept your decision; 

7) Ultimately, as the leader, you have the final say. But if you take action with others' views and interests in mind, you'll be more likely to win their commitment (rather than just compliance) - which means that they'll be more likely to go the extra mile for you and the organization. 

8) Empathy is a prerequisite for influence, because we need to know what will motivate a person to change before we can take action that will lead him to change.

You Need to Have a Goal - or Do You?

I've frequently seen references to a study conducted at Yale in 1953 which found that 3% of MBA graduates surveyed had clear written goals for their future, 13% had goals but had not written them down, and 84% had no specific goals at all. When these same graduates were surveyed ten years later, the 3% who had written goals were earning on average ten times as much as the other 97%.

This study has been cited for years to prove the point that specific, written goals are essential if you want to achieve your highest level of success. The idea is that, if you don’t know (and don’t document) where you’re going with total clarity, you’ll likely fall far short of your potential.

I’ve always been somewhat skeptical of this one-size-fits-all approach to life and career planning. After all, how many people can see with 20/20 foresight what opportunities will present themselves on life’s journey? And, just as situations change, people change. My burning ambition at age 21 to devote myself to an all-consuming career may suddenly be tempered by life events somewhere down the pike – say, my desire to spend more time with my family as I get older.

My sense that there are a variety of approaches to life and career planning is supported by research conducted by Annie McKee, founder of the Teleos Leadership Institute. McKee found that people use three different approaches to thinking about and planning for the future:

1) Goal-oriented: This is the style used by the 16% of the people cited in the Yale study. “Goal-oriented planners tend to focus on very specific goals and outcomes,” writes McKee in Becoming a Resonant Leader (co-authored with Richard Boyatzis and Frances Johnston).

2) Direction-oriented: Regarding this style, McKee writes: “Although they know the general path they wish to pursue, they stop short of getting too specific…. They adapt easily to changes in the environment, but stay true to an overarching set of principles, values, or a vision.” This style is similar to the approach I mentioned in an earlier post, in which a person sets an Aspirational Goal about the things she wants to realize in her life without locking in to a specific path or role.

3) Action-oriented: Action-oriented planners tend not to look very far down the road at all. As McKee says, “They choose each action according to the logic of the moment and base the next decision on outcomes of recent past actions.” I would call these the Improvisational Planners (to use a deliberate contradiction), who base their approach on a series of on-the-fly choices that just feel right at the moment.

With respect to these styles, McKee makes a telling observation:

“One size does not fit all when it comes to formulating a useful plan for your future [emphasis added]. When leadership development programs attempt to convince everyone to use the same format and propose one ‘best way’ [shades of Frederick Winslow Taylor!] to think about a person’s future and plans, it is not surprising that change is not sustained.”

I think that McKee’s research reflects a key point about the nature of change and growth: The more you’re able to chart a development path that reflects your own style, the more likely you’ll be able to follow it. The more you try to shoehorn yourself into an approach that doesn’t fit you, the more you’ll be continually struggling against yourself to sustain your resolve.

As with any change effort, of course, you’ll be well served by challenging yourself to do things outside of your comfort zone. In McKee’s words, “Each of the three styles has wisdom for the other; the point is to know and honor your preference and be aware of the others as you organize activities in your plan.”

But do McKee’s findings go against the conclusions drawn by the Yale study I mentioned above? Well, no – because in fact there is no such Yale study! Even though the “study” has been cited for years (with multiple variations in the retelling – some peg it to Harvard, some place it in the ‘60s, or ‘70s – all in true Urban Legend style), no evidence has been found to confirm its actual existence, as Fast Company magazine pointed out in a 1996 article. While “You Must Have a Goal” may sound like the only way to go, the research shows that it's only one approach to creating a career and life that will work for you.

Balancing Chaos and Rigidity: Using Light Structures to Guide Our Improvisation

I’ve found the concept of “improvisation in organizations” to often be a difficult sell.  Many people seem to think that “improvise” means “make it all up as you go along” – which conjures up images of multiple free agents setting off on individual courses of action that can’t be tracked, monitored, or controlled.  

In fact, though, improv follows processes and rules of engagement that guide individuals in their actions without dictating exactly what they should say or do. As Cathy Salit of the applied improvisation group Performance of a Lifetime says, “Beneath the apparent chaos of improvisation is a light structure that allows it to work.” For performance improvisers, that structure is comprised of games that frame the boundaries of the actors’ onstage performance, as well as rules (such as “Say Yes And” and “Make Your Partner Look Good”) that guide the behaviors of the actors.

Without this sense of light structure, performance improv would be nothing more than individual actors trying to upstage one another by making wisecracks and calling attention to themselves as individuals. The team aspect of improv – a central aspect of its appeal and success – would be totally lost, since there would be no unifying goal for the performers’ actions beyond trying to evoke big yuks.

The value of using “light structures” is also becoming increasingly recognized by business organizations.

Think about it from your own experience: When was the last time you arrived at work and were handed the “script of the day” to be rigidly observed until it was time to go home? Improvising is the human condition – we’re constantly improvising, from morning until night. Yet organizational life requires each of us to focus our improvisations on the accomplishment of a common goal. Structures such as a company vision, mission, core values, and work objectives allow an organization to marshal all of the individual actions of its members toward the achievement of a common purpose. These structures also allow for a degree of consistency and control in the operation of the enterprise.

However, the danger of making these structures too heavy can be illustrated by certain organizations that have tried to operate by means of overly rigid requirements. In his book To Sell Is Human, Dan Pink notes that Col. John Patterson of NCR Corporation sketched the blueprint for a sales approach that depended on saying and doing things precisely by the book in interactions with customers. Quoting Harvard business historian Walter Friedman, Pink notes:  “The ever more detailed instructions … focused ‘not only on what salesmen should say, but also on what they were to do while saying it.’”

While consistency is needed in a company’s sales methods, this approach taken to its extreme has the downside of making sellers sound robotic and inauthentic. These methods may have met with success in the days when selling was largely a formulaic, cost-benefit proposition. Selling today, though, requires building relationships with customers as much as it does pointing out features and benefits of products. And relationship-building involves give and take, going where the customer wants to go, listening carefully, and treating each customer as a unique individual – none of which is possible with a completely prearranged approach. A more lightly structured selling approach that focuses on the customer’s buying steps and the actions that can help guide (not force or push) the customer up those steps allows for sellers to recognize the needs and expectations of each individual customer while still maintaining a consistent approach.

You might say, “Well, that’s fine, but my job doesn’t involve selling anything.” But one of Pink’s main themes is that we’re all in sales now. His studies have shown that up to 40% of the workday of the typical organizational member involves what he calls non-sales selling – “persuading, influencing, and convincing others in ways that don’t involve anyone making a purchase.” Whether you’re a manager trying to negotiate for project resources, a lawyer trying to move a jury, a doctor trying to persuade a patient to follow a treatment plan, or a facilitator trying to influence a class participant to adopt a new behavior or way of thinking … you’re a salesperson. And the same light-structure approach – derived from the rules of improvisational theater - that guides the actions of the modern sales professional can guide yours as well. As Dan Pink describes them:

1) Hear Offers: As Cathy Salit says, improv performers must “listen without listening for anything.” In other words, they need to suspend the mental filters and assumptions through which they hear the words of others and which can distract them from the actual message. For example, if someone you’re trying to influence responds by asking several questions, you might interpret their failure to immediately agree with you as resistance to what you’re saying. You may then react by treating them as an adversary who needs to be “defeated.” But if you listen carefully and generously, you might realize that their questions reflect a good-faith attempt to understand what you’re saying. In effect, they may be making an offer to continue the interaction and perhaps work collaboratively toward a mutually agreeable solution.

2) Say “Yes And”:  When we say “yes and,” we maintain an attitude of positivity and possibility toward the person we’re trying to influence.  “Yes and” doesn’t necessarily mean Agreeing with the other’s Position. Rather, it means Accepting the Person, Acknowledging the Possibilities in what he or she is saying, and Advancing with Positive Purpose.

3) Make Your Partner Look Good: As mentioned above, improv is a collaborative team performance that requires the actors to allow space for their fellow team members to shine. Doing so makes for a better scene, and better success for everyone. The same holds true when you’re trying to influence someone in a certain direction: Focusing on the other’s interests as much as your own can result in creative win-win solutions that allow both of you to “shine.”

Light Without Heat: Creating the Full Equation for Change

I'm always on the lookout for pop music from the '60s - the more obscure, the better. Last week, on a browse through YouTube, I found a song titled "Light Without Heat" by a California group called (fittingly enough) Creation of Sunlight. Even before I listened to the tune, though, I was intrigued by the title - especially in "light" of the thinking I've been doing lately on the subject of personal change.

It strikes me that "light without heat" describes the way many people attempt to effect change in others - and in themselves. For example, a leader might be dealing with an employee who has high potential but who's saddled with a behavior - such as a hair-trigger temper - that's derailing him in his career. The leader might try to give the employee a wake-up call by shining the light of realization in his face regarding his behavior. This can take the form of a coaching session in which the leader encourages the employee to reflect on his behavior and self-realize the way in which it's holding him back. It might also be a 360-degree feedback process, a comment on a performance evaluation, or (in extreme cases) a direct confrontation in which the leader flat-out tells the employee about the behavior and its negative impact.

Certainly this "light" can serve to jar the employee out of his complacency or cluelessness. But such a wake-up call is likely to have only a temporary effect. In order for the employee to do the hard, day-in and day-out work of personal change, he needs to have a sustaining vision of what he can become. By creating a clear picture of what his life will be like if he's able to work more effectively with others, he can create the "heat," the fire in the belly that will motivate him to pursue his personal goal.

Or consider an automobile salesperson who uses a consultative approach with her clients. In inquiring about a client's situation and needs, she may become aware of a blind spot in the client's understanding of his current circumstances. For example, the client may have a 10-year-old vehicle with 200,000 miles that's running fine now but that might cause problems as the client moves to a new house an extra 25 miles from his job.

In this situation, the consultative salesperson could ask a question to shed light on the client's situation: "With that longer commute, what would happen if you found yourself taking your car into the shop once a month or even more?" As the client considers the impact, he could give himself a wake-up call that might rouse him from his complacency. But to help the client see a way out of the bad outcome he's now contemplating, the salesperson could follow up with another question: "What would it feel like to have a car as dependable as your current car was 10 years ago?" This can prompt the client to see the positive outcomes in proceeding with a purchase - again, to motivate him to move toward a possible future rather than just running from an undesirable present.

Organizational change itself also works best if wake-up calls (to shake people out of their comfort with the status quo) are accompanied by a positive vision for change and a series of steps to start moving in that direction. The wake-up call - which can be a stark message about what could happen if change does not occur - can provide the light. The positive vision - the well-drawn descriptions and images of what the organization and its people could achieve - provides the heat, the inner fire of motivation to proceed even in the face of difficulties that might lie ahead.

"Light Without Heat" is another way of saying "Awareness Without Action" or "Knowing Without Doing." Both sides of the equation are necessary to maintain your resolve and commitment to change.

Why Be Positive?

As a kid, I was a huge fan of Bill Cosby’s comedy records. I particularly liked his routine about his grade school teacher who tried to teach math by rote:

TEACHER: Class, one and one is two.

CLASS: Yeah, cool, man! What’s a two?

Well, rather than fall into the trap of merely asserting “universal truths” and assuming that everyone knows (and agrees with) their significance, I’ll summarize some of the benefits that can result from the YES! Leader’s adoption of positivity in his leadership practice:

1) Emotions are contagious, and the leader is usually the main carrier. People look to the leader to set the emotional tone of the organizational environment. If the leader approaches challenges in a negative way, her mood is likely to rub off on her followers. By contrast, if the leader adopts an optimistic outlook on her people’s ability to deal with current and future challenges, the followers are more likely to believe in their capacity for creating positive outcomes.

2) Learning flourishes in an environment in which people are respected, valued, and empowered to give their best. If the leader conveys a consistent message of high (and attainable) expectations of people’s abilities, along with ongoing support for and recognition of their efforts, then people are more likely to, not just achieve goals, but learn from their experiences and engage in sustained successful performance over time. The true mark of a positive environment is the regular expending of discretionary effort by the organization’s members – doing far more than just the bare minimum.

By contrast, if the leader creates an overall sour mood that doesn’t encourage and support people in their day-to-day work, people are less likely to experience the benefits and payoffs that come from attempting to stretch themselves. Especially if the leader’s mood is inconsistent and erratic, the followers focus less on achieving and learning, more on protecting themselves from the leader’s unpredictable behavior. This can result in an environment in which people are constantly on guard against potential attacks. Simply put, optimal learning can’t occur in a high-stress environment.

3) Positivity sparks a mindset that creates a vision of an ideal future. In their book Becoming a Resonant Leader, authors Annie McKee, Richard Boyatzis, and Frances Johnson refer to this as engaging the Positive Emotional Attractor, which in turn “supports a sustainable change process by increasing our capacity for emotional flexibility, improving our neurological functioning, and increasing our sense of psychological well-being.”

One example of the Positive Emotional Attractor in action can be seen in the process of individual growth and change. Many people embark on development efforts by first identifying the gaps and weaknesses in their arsenal of skills (“If I could only get better at _____, I’d be great”).  But this focus on deficiencies can quickly become demotivating unless the person first paints a mental picture of what life could be like – what he could become – in the future. As McKee et al. say, “The key is that the vision should invoke in our mind a specific, clear picture of the future – one that we find inspiring and feasible.” Creating this vision of the ideal self and the ideal future gives us both a clear direction (to guide our development plans) and an inner passion (to keep us motivated to pursue those plans).

The YES! Leader can reflect this Positive Emotional Attractor in her own development as a leader, by creating and continually refining this detailed vision of her ideal self as a beacon to guide her individual growth. She can also inspire her followers to create their own personal visions by coaching them in their development efforts. And she can inspire the entire organization by encouraging the adoption of the Positive Emotional Attractor as a mindset to guide everyone in their daily interactions – by expecting the best of every encounter and working collaboratively to bring it to fruition, rather than wallowing in the factors that keep them stuck in the current reality.

Painting an ideal future will not by itself lead to realizing that future – but it’s a necessary starting point for a development journey that could easily involve multiple speed bumps and barriers along the way. As Jim Collins notes in describing the Stockdale Paradox, an optimistic belief in the power to change and a realistic acknowledgment of the current reality must go hand in hand. The latter without the former leads to discouragement and demoralization. The former without the latter leads to an unrealistic assessment of the challenges ahead – which, when encountered, lead to discouragement and demoralization as well.

GOOOOOAL! Keeping Yourself on the Path in Your Life's Journey

Many people believe that future success depends on creating a precise vision of exactly what you’ll be doing with your life by a defined time in the future – for example, “In 10 years I’ll be the Talent Management Director for a Fortune 500 retail company.”

I’ve always questioned whether this near-mandate of “you must have a specific goal” is a universal truth, for two primary reasons:

1) Setting such a specific goal usually involves making a future projection based on current realities. Who knows whether the existing job description for a Talent Management Director will still apply in 10 years? And if the nature of the role changes significantly, how do you know that the skills you’re building for the role will still be important 10 years from now?

2) Not only do “things change,” but we change. Our goals and motivators are largely determined by underlying values that are important to us – such as “making a high income” or “having a lot of power.” It’s funny, though, how life events (such as having children) and the natural process of maturation can cause us to recalibrate our values and priorities. As we get close to that definite goal that requires high responsibility and long work hours, we may find that “work-life balance” has unexpectedly become an imperative in the interim. And if we’ve focused our career development efforts too narrowly up to that time, we may find ourselves in career crisis.

Undoubtedly there are people who know exactly what they want in X years and go get it. But there are also others who would feel too hemmed in by such a predetermined goal and who find it more effective to shift and adjust (i.e., improvise) to meet the changes in the environment – and in themselves. As with many other things, career planning (or what I prefer to call “life planning”) is a matter of personal preference and not a cookie-cutter proposition.

Perhaps the best rule of thumb is this: In life planning, either your goals must be flexible or you must be flexible – or both, in whatever combination reflects your own approach to dealing with your environment.

One highly effective approach to life planning involves the creation of an Aspirational Goal for yourself. An Aspirational Goal is, very simply, the way you would complete the sentence, “In X years, I want a situation in which I ….” If you have a precise idea of the role or position you want, you can complete the sentence with precision – e.g, “In 10 years, I want a situation in which I am the Talent Management Director of a Fortune 500 retail company.” 

However, if you are the type who prefers to maintain flexibility in your planning, you can instead describe the factors you want to have in place in your future situation – whatever it might ultimately be. For example, “In 10 years, I want a situation in which I am able to run my own business using my creative abilities, leaving enough time to take two months off each year for travel.” A benefit of the latter approach is that it brings your values (creativity, autonomy, mobility) front and center into your life planning and allows you to reevalute them at regular intervals to see if they still apply.

You can think of your Aspirational Goal as a beacon on a distant hill that helps you navigate your life’s journey. You might find yourself taking detours from time to time and proceeding in a less-than-direct path – but the light from your Aspirational Goal will still be visible to help you reorient yourself and check your progress on the path. As you reach decision points – Should I accept this job? Do I want to pursue this degree? Do I want to relocate to Wyoming? – you can ask yourself: “Will this help me move in the direction of my Aspirational Goal?”