My last reflection for 2024. I’ve seen futures processes fail, not because the scenarios were weak, but because the facilitation was.
Some common anti-patterns that I’ve noticed include:
Scenario-as-performance
Scenarios are presented to people, not worked with them. The result: polite nodding, little engagement, no real shift in thinking.
Scenario-as-answer
Scenarios are treated as conclusions rather than provocations. The result: premature convergence, false certainty, “So which one will happen?”
Scenario-without-people
Systems are mapped, drivers are analysed, but no one asks who lives there. The result: futures that are technically plausible and emotionally empty.
Scenario-overuse
Everything becomes a scenario exercise, even when the group is exhausted, overwhelmed, or disconnected. The result: abstraction fatigue and disengagement.
None of these are problems with scenarios themselves. They’re signals that the facilitator hasn’t read the room carefully enough, varied the mode of engagement, or reintroduced humanity at the right moment.
In my view, good futures facilitation isn’t about loyalty to a method. It’s about discernment: knowing when to hold complexity open, and when to help people step inside it.