My daughter got married last month. Everything seemed to be falling into place after more than a year of planning, with lots of thought, effort, and logistical juggling. After being involved in weddings through the years, they had a pretty good idea of what they wanted. They took the necessary steps to bring about their vision.

They did not have a crystal ball, though, and could not foretell the future. There will undoubtedly be unexpected things that need to be taken care of at the last minute. The weather holds no guarantees and may require further adjustments in the proceedings.

Even though they had a general idea of what they wanted, the actual event will not perfectly reflect the original vision. The whole process takes a lot of flexibility, negotiation, and cooperation to make it all fit together. Reality at the local level dictates what will happen, even with the best planning efforts. Good planning anticipates what will likely happen, but good planning also builds in flexibility to adjust to changing reality. I look forward to a wonderful time because a lot of effort went into anticipating the final desired result, but everyone will be flexible enough to make it work, regardless of what happens on that day or the days leading up to it.

Wedding planning is actually a useful analogy for any type of planning. Owners or managers of businesses or organizations have a vision for what they want to achieve, but only adequate planning allows them to bring all resources together at the right time to give a particular result.

My daughter leaned on the experiences of countless people to determine what she liked and didn’t like in a wedding day, to figure out what actions had to be taken, what people had to be contacted, and so many odd details. She used checklists and guidelines to try to make sure things didn’t fall through the cracks.

Her plan, however, was dynamic, taking into account of what changing reality offered.

When the planning process itself becomes an end in itself, it can lead to as many problems as operating without a plan. The more formal, detailed, comprehensive, and elegant the plan is, the less useful it will likely be and the less flexibility it will allow. People worship the plan or are bound by it instead of the intended results.

With her plan, my daughter had a direct interest in making sure things were right and in adjusting to things that didn’t go exactly as planned, and that is important, no matter who does the actual work. Similarly, a business owner has an interest in making sure that his or her assets, including time, are well spent and produce a good result. In other words, they also have skin in the game. They will be hurt directly if things go wrong, and thus are careful to do things right.

That is an important lesson for planning in the public sphere. The further away from the action the planners are, the less skin in the game they have.

The less they have to lose personally, the less interest in making sure that the plan works for those who bear the results. National politicians don’t apologize or forfeit salaries or life savings to make up for their arrogance and gross errors that take such a toll on others.

The more skin in the game, the more likely the efforts will be directed at good results instead of good speeches, documents, and laws with impressive sounding names. Thus, most of the activity in economic and social life should be planned at the most local level possible. Skin in the game makes a difference.

Dan McLaughlin, a Randolph resident, is the author of “Compassion and Truth-Why Good Intentions Don’t Equal Good Results.” Follow him at daniel-mclaughlin.com.