I’ve been in futures workshops that looked impressive from the outside. There were beautifully designed slides. Sophisticated frameworks. Post-its covering every wall. People left energised, saying it was “inspiring” or “eye-opening”. And then: nothing really changed.
This is what I think of as futures-as-theatre. The performance of futures work without the conditions that allow it to actually result in change.
The issue usually isn’t the methods. Scenario planning, horizon scanning, speculative artefacts, whatever: these can all be useful. The problem is when the process prioritises activity and outputs over sense-making and ownership. When futures work becomes theatrical, participation can feel superficial. Some voices dominate. Others stay quiet. Ideas are generated faster than they can be processed. The room moves on before anyone has had a chance to sit with what the futures imply for them.
What’s missing is often facilitation that attends to how the conversation is unfolding. This is about noticing who feels safe to speak, where uncertainty is being rushed, and whether the group is actually thinking together or just producing material.
Good futures work doesn’t have to be flashy. Some of the most impactful sessions I’ve facilitated have been relatively simple on the surface, but carefully held. The difference shows up later, when people reference the futures again, use the common language that emerged, or make decisions differently.
I’m increasingly wary of futures work that looks good but doesn’t change how people relate to uncertainty, responsibility, or choice. That’s something I try to pay attention to, both as a facilitator, and as a participant.