Planners need to be willing to say, “Let’s double-check that”–Here’s how to trade swagger for strategy
In meeting and event planning, certainty can be seductive. Planners are constantly asked to make decisions—about site selection, security measures, networking formats, content strategy, and a hundred other variables. In the rush to keep projects moving, we often mistake certainty for clarity. We reward the person who sounds the most confident, even when their conviction is built more on instinct than insight.
I was reminded of this recently in two professional discussions where my suggestions were dismissed—not with data, but with sheer certainty.
In one, the topic was security planning for a major city venue. I pointed out that in dense urban environments, physical perimeter security can be tricky—many buildings simply don’t have the buffer space common in suburban office parks. But some landmark buildings are exceptions and may have room for more robust perimeter strategies. I suggested one such location might be worth examining more closely.
The reply? Not an analysis of building design or security deployment, but an instant pivot to a broader political talking point. A confident, one-sentence answer—completely sidestepping the architectural and procedural realities I was raising.
In another discussion, a hospitality professional described an RFP from a client casting an almost comically wide net: multiple states, an international destination, and a wide-open date range. I suggested that AI could help—either by helping the client narrow options before sending the RFP or by helping venues sort and prioritize their responses.
The response? A quick laugh and a firm dismissal: “AI can’t do that—this needs a human consultant.” Again, certainty carried the day—not because it was necessarily right, but because it was confident and familiar.
In both cases, conviction obscured the reality. The first conversation wasn’t about politics—it was about venue design and security. The second wasn’t about replacing people—it was about using technology to make them more effective. But when someone is sure they’re right, nuance gets lost.
For planners, that loss can be costly. Choosing a venue without fully exploring security realities, dismissing new tools without examining their potential, or clinging to familiar formats because they “always work” can all undermine event success.
What if we flipped that? What if we started honoring the pause, the pivot, the I’m not sure yet? What if we taught planners to treat doubt not as a sign of indecision, but as an essential tool for getting to the right answer? In an industry defined by constant change—shifting regulations, evolving attendee expectations, and new technologies—the ability to test, to listen, and to adjust isn’t a weakness. It’s the skill that keeps events relevant and effective.
The future of great events won’t belong to those who were sure from the start. It will belong to those who stayed curious long enough to get it right.
Any thoughts, opinions, or news? Please share them with me at vince@meetingsevents.com.
Image generated by AI using OpenAI’s DALL·E
