Planning

Brazilians calibrate planning detail and timeframe based on how much uncertainty exists. When conditions are stable and predictable, longer-term detailed planning makes sense. When uncertainty is high, focus on shorter horizons with more frequent adjustment points.

This is sophisticated calibration, not short-termism. The question is always: what planning approach fits current conditions? Investing heavily in detailed long-term plans when the environment is volatile wastes effort. Planning in short cycles when conditions permit longer views leaves value on the table.

In practice, this often means more detailed planning for the near term, more flexible direction-setting for longer horizons. Build plans with explicit review points where adjustment is expected. Treat long-term plans as working hypotheses subject to revision rather than commitments to be executed regardless of circumstances.

Understand that plans in Brazil often exist in ongoing negotiation rather than as fixed commitments. A stated plan may be a position in a continuing conversation, an intention open to adjustment, or a proposal awaiting input—not a final binding commitment. This negotiation orientation requires relationship. You cannot negotiate with strangers; you negotiate with people you have relationships with.

The Brazilian investment in relationship-building partly serves this negotiation function: strong relationships create trust and communication channels that allow plans to evolve without conflict. When you hear a plan, understand its status. Is this a firm commitment or a working proposal? Is there still room for input?

Asking these questions shows sophistication, not distrust. And when you plan with Brazilian counterparts, expect the planning conversation to continue through execution—not as failure to commit but as appropriate ongoing adjustment.

Brazilian planning maintains connection to human purposes in the present, not just future outcomes. Plans exist to serve people; people do not exist to serve plans. When strict plan adherence would damage relationships or present wellbeing without proportionate gain, the plan appropriately flexes.

This means scheduling that leaves room for human connection—meetings that include relationship maintenance, timelines that do not crush the people executing them. It means evaluating success by human terms alongside task terms: did the project succeed and did the team remain healthy and connected? This orientation provides a check against planning pathology: plans becoming ends in themselves, processes serving institutions rather than people, future orientation damaging present living. Keep asking: what human purpose does this plan serve?

Is adherence to the plan still serving that purpose? If not, the plan needs to change.