Somewhere in your organisation there is a plan with your name on it. You have read it once. You could not recite it now.
Which is what happens to the first of your two plans.
Most leaders are carrying two. The first is written. It has a template, a font, a submission date and somebody upstairs who asked for it. It exists to be approved, and once approved, job done.
The second is the one you run. It lives in a notebook, a whiteboard, a running list, the back of your head. Nobody issued it. Nobody has ever asked to see it. It decides what happens on Tuesday.
The trouble is not that you have two. It is that only one of them was ever designed. By you.
And the two have to say the same thing. The moment the plan you run drifts from the plan you signed, you are working on something nobody agreed to. That gap never gets found by you.
Planning done properly buys you freedom. Planning done badly costs you the freedom it promised. The difference is not effort. It is whether the plan you run was built for the way you work, and still points at what you signed.
Why the second plan gets abandoned
You have owned a planner you loved. A month in you started finding fault with it. Six weeks in you stopped opening it, and you filed that quietly as a discipline problem.
It was a design problem.
A bound planner is built for an average week and nobody has one. Half the pages assume meetings you do not take, or meetings that now record and minute themselves. There is no page for the thing you do fourteen times a day. So you work around it, then you work without it, and the planner sits in a drawer being evidence of something you abandoned.
Team plans go the same way. The template asks for quarterly milestones when your work turns over weekly. It has a risk register you have never once opened, and it never once asks about the roster, which is the thing that actually decides what gets done.
Plans go stale fast. A system built five years ago still has pages for writing the notes, drafting the summary, pulling the numbers together. Much of that now takes seconds. What it has no page for is what replaced it: checking what came back, and owning it once you send it on.
You did not stop using it because you lack discipline. You stopped because it was built for a week nobody actually has.
The fix is not a better template. It is permission to take pages out. At the end of the first month, keep what you opened, delete what you did not, and make more of whatever ran out first. That last one is the page doing the work.
A plan you have edited once is a plan you own. Everything after that is maintenance.
What has to survive the edit
Take out enough pages and you reach something you cannot take out.
Three things have to survive. A goal specific enough to argue about. A number that tells you whether it moved. A date somebody expects to hear from you.
That is SMART, and you have met SMART. Forty-five years old, most people can recite it, and almost nobody can point at a goal in their own plan that passes it.
Doran (1981) wrote it for a management journal, and his words were not the ones you were taught. He wrote: specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, time-related. Assignable, meaning a name against it. Somewhere between his article and your work pack the name fell off, replaced by achievable, which asks nothing of anybody.
That swap explains most of what goes wrong. Achievable asks whether the goal is fair. Assignable asks who is doing it. Only one of those is uncomfortable enough to be useful.
So when you edit, protect the awkward parts. A goal you could argue about, a number you might miss, a name you would have to say out loud, a date somebody is expecting.
Everything else is decoration, and decoration is what you have permission to delete.
The rhythm, not the ritual
A plan you have designed and edited can still go quiet. Not because it is wrong, but because nothing in your week asks after it.
So build in the ask. Three rhythms, and they are not the same job.
Monthly, reflect and focus. What worked, what did not, what we are doing about it. An hour at most. This is the one that keeps the plan honest.
Quarterly, look outward. Nothing in your plan controls the market, the funding, the regulation or the technology, and all four move without asking you.
Annually, start again from the strengths. Once a year, ask what is working rather than what is broken. Most annual reviews go looking for problems and find them, which is not the same as finding the truth.
That last one has its own method and its own article. If your team only ever does SWOT, the shortest thing I can say here is that starting from strengths produces a different conversation, and usually a braver plan.
Yes, but who has the time
An hour a month, a scan a quarter, half a day a year. Nine hours across a year.
You will not find them. You prioritise them. Urgent beats important, every time, and the awkward parts of a plan are never the loudest thing in your day. They lose to what is shouting.
Prioritised means in the calendar. Before the month starts, named something nobody will cancel, treated like a meeting with someone that matters.
Freedom starts between the ears
The title is not about motivation. It is about where the constraint actually sits.
Nobody controls their week. The roster moves, the phone goes, somebody resigns. What you control is whether the plan you run was built for that, or built for a week nobody has.
That is the freedom. Not a clearer diary. Fewer decisions made in the moment, by a tired person, under load, about work that matters.
Planning & priorities
Your team can decide what does not get done.
Urgent Beats Important. Every Time. Practical planning that survives a real workload: how to protect the time, how to decide what does not get done, and how to finish what you start. Runs for any team, at any level.
Enquire about this one See team engagement solutions
The first button opens your email app with the questions already in it. If nothing happens when you tap it, your device has no mail app set up, so use the second one.
Driving results through people is what we do.
For students, and anyone who wants the evidence
One source does the heavy lifting in this article, and it is worth reading in the original.
Doran, G.T. (1981) 'There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives', Management Review, 70(11), pp. 35-36.
A note on the acronym. Doran wrote specific, measurable, assignable, realistic and time-related, in the November 1981 issue of the American Management Association's journal. The version most people are taught replaces assignable with achievable. Who made that substitution, and when, does not appear to be documented anywhere.
Cite this article
Reference list
Satterthwaite, M-J. (2017) Freedom starts between the ears: the two plans you are carrying. Revised August 2026. Scope Vision. Available at: https://scopevision.com.au/blog/businessplanningtoolkit (Accessed: [insert date]).
In text
(Satterthwaite, 2017)
Keep reading
How to Drive Team Results: Monitor, Measure and MoveThis article is about the plan you run. That one is about the plan your team runs, and the two questions that tell you whether it is still alive.
Stop SWOTing. Start SOARing.The annual rhythm, in full. How to start a planning session from what is working rather than what is broken.
The Value of TimeBefore you decide what does not get done, it helps to know what an hour of yours is actually worth.
Align your Team's Vision, Behaviour and ConsequencesSame discipline, pointed at behaviour instead of goals, plus twenty conversations worth having.
Go and take a page out.
The like button just below is how I know.
And if someone came to mind while you were reading, send it to them. That is the better compliment.
