Chapter 5: Defining Where You Want to Go (D)

The Temptation to Leap

"So now I know my D'," Marcus said, reviewing our work from the previous session. "I over-prepare extensively and deliver rapidly to minimise time when things could go wrong. What's next—figuring out what I want instead?"

"Exactly. We need to define D—where you want to go."

"Easy." He sat forward, energised. "I want to be a confident, commanding presence. Someone who walks into a room and owns it. A leader people follow because of sheer presence."

I paused. "That's a beautiful aspiration. But it's not D."

Marcus looked confused. "Why not? That's what I want."

"I know. And that's exactly why it's dangerous to start there."

The Aspiration Trap

Here's where most people go wrong—and where the Perry Approach diverges sharply from conventional wisdom.

When asked "What do you want instead?", our minds leap to ideals. We imagine the finished product, the transformed self, the perfect outcome. Marcus pictures himself commanding a room like the executives he's admired his whole career. Rachel imagines being celebrated for her contributions. David envisions being a balanced leader who delegates effortlessly.

These aspirations feel motivating. They give us something to strive for.

But they're traps.

Why? Three reasons:

1. Aspirations Contain Assumptions

When Marcus says "I want to be a commanding presence," he's already assumed he knows what success looks like. But does he? His model of "commanding presence" comes from watching others—people whose internal experience he cannot know. Perhaps those leaders he admires are terrified inside. Perhaps their "command" comes from a different source entirely than what Marcus imagines.

Starting with an aspiration means starting with assumptions about how to get what you want. The cloud process is designed to surface assumptions, not begin with them embedded invisibly in your destination.

2. Aspirations Skip the Journey

There's a vast territory between "I over-prepare and speak rapidly" and "I'm a commanding presence." That territory contains the actual transformation. When you leap to the end state, you bypass the work of understanding what has to change and why.

It's like saying "I want to be in Paris" when you're standing in London. You've named your destination but revealed nothing about how to travel, what routes exist, or what obstacles lie between here and there. The Perry Approach maps the territory, not just the endpoints.

3. Aspirations Limit Solutions

This is the most counterintuitive point, so stay with me.

When Marcus defines his goal as "commanding presence," he's already constrained his solution space. He's decided what success looks like. But what if the most powerful version of Marcus isn't a commanding presence at all? What if his breakthrough is something entirely different—something he can't currently imagine because he's been fixated on one model of leadership?

By specifying the end state too precisely, you close doors before you know they exist.

The Power of Negation

So if D isn't your aspiration, what is it?

D is simply NOT D'. It's the negation or reduction of your current behaviour.

Let's make this concrete:

Notice what's happening here. D isn't a grand vision. It's simply NOT what you're currently doing. This might seem underwhelming compared to "commanding presence," but it's actually far more powerful.

Consider: if I ask you "What's the opposite of black?" you might say "white." But that's just one option. The opposite of black is any colour that isn't black — red, blue, green, purple, gold, silver, or colours that haven't yet been named. In the same way, the opposite of your current state isn't a single prescribed behaviour. It's an entire universe of possibilities.

Why Negation Works

It Keeps You Grounded in Reality

D' is observable and concrete. Its negation is equally concrete. "NOT over-prepare extensively" is directly tied to your current behaviour. "I'm a commanding presence" is an abstraction that could mean dozens of different things.

When both D' and D are grounded in observable behaviour, the entire cloud stays connected to reality. This is crucial for what comes next—identifying the benefits of each position.

It Opens Possibility Space

Here's the counterintuitive magic: by keeping D as simply "NOT D'", you create room for something better to emerge.

"NOT speak rapidly without pauses" doesn't specify what you do instead. Maybe you speak slowly. Maybe you pause dramatically. Maybe you speak at varied paces. The NOT leaves the door open.

By not defining the ultimate outcome, you leave room for the cloud process to reveal possibilities you couldn't have predicted.

It Respects the Intelligence of Both States

When D is simply "NOT D'," there's no implicit judgement that D is better. It's just different. This matters because, as we'll see in Chapter 6, D' has real benefits. It's not simply wrong. The negation framing creates space to explore what both states offer, without prejudging which is superior.

Why NOT Works Better Than Positive Reframing

You might be tempted to convert "NOT over-prepare" into something that sounds more actionable—like "prepare appropriately" or "prepare adequately."

Resist that temptation.

Here's why: The moment you define what you'll do instead, you've made assumptions about the solution. "Prepare appropriately" assumes you know what appropriate looks like. "Prepare adequately" assumes you know what adequate means.

But you don't know yet. That's the whole point of the cloud process—to discover what becomes possible when you're NOT doing D'.

The NOT is doing important work. It points away from your current behaviour without prescribing where you'll land. That openness is where breakthrough lives.

Your conscious mind loves quick answers. But transformation happens in the space between question and answer. By keeping your future state open, you remain in creative tension — and creative tension is where breakthrough actually happens.

Marcus Finds His D

"Let me try again," Marcus said, putting aside his vision of commanding presence. "My D' is that I over-prepare extensively and deliver rapidly. So D would be..."

"Just negate it. NOT D'. Don't reach for something that sounds better."

"NOT over-prepare extensively... and NOT deliver rapidly?"

"Exactly."

He looked uncomfortable. "But that doesn't tell me what to do."

"Precisely. And that's the point. We don't know yet what you'll do instead. That's what the cloud process will reveal. If we decide now that D means 'prepare appropriately,' we've already assumed we know the answer."

"What about the eye contact thing?"

"What's your D'?"

"I avoid eye contact with my audience."

"So D is?"

"NOT avoid eye contact with my audience."

Marcus's D: NOT over-prepare extensively. NOT deliver rapidly. NOT avoid eye contact.

Notice: no mention of "commanding presence." No vision of being a transformational leader. No assumptions about what "appropriate" preparation looks like. Just NOT what he's currently doing.

"This feels... incomplete," Marcus admitted.

"Good. That incompleteness is where the breakthrough lives. If it felt complete, you'd have closed down the possibilities before we've explored them."

The Relationship Between D and D'

In the Perry Approach, D and D' exist in a specific relationship: D is simply NOT D'.

This isn't about finding the "opposite" behaviour or the "right" alternative. It's about creating space by negating what you're currently doing.

Think of it like this: D' is a door you keep walking through. D is NOT walking through that door. Where you go instead? That's what we discover through the cloud process.

This means:

• D doesn't prescribe a destination—it opens a direction
• You can't do D' and NOT D' simultaneously
• The conflict isn't about which behaviour is "right"
• It's about what each position serves

This last point is crucial. We're not trying to prove D' is wrong. We're exploring what becomes possible when you're NOT doing D'.

The Language of D

How you phrase D matters. The key principle: D is NOT D'.

Keep the NOT Explicit

D should explicitly negate D'. Don't convert it to a positive alternative.

• D': "I over-prepare extensively"
• D: "NOT over-prepare extensively"

The NOT does important work. It points away from your current behaviour without assuming you know where you'll land.

Avoid Identity Statements

D should negate a behaviour, not claim an identity.

• Wrong: "I'm a confident speaker" (identity/aspiration)
• Wrong: "I speak with measured pauses" (positive alternative)
• Right: "NOT speak rapidly without pauses" (negation of D')

Identity statements are aspirations in disguise. Positive alternatives assume you know the solution. NOT keeps the door open.

Match the Grain of D'

D should negate D' at the same level of specificity.

• D': "I revise emails repeatedly before sending"
• D: "NOT revise emails repeatedly before sending"
• D': "I delay all decisions until forced"
• D: "NOT delay all decisions until forced"

Mismatched grain creates confusion and makes the cloud harder to work with.

Case Study: Rachel's D

Remember Rachel from Chapter 4? Her D' was: "I defer credit and visibility opportunities to others."

When I asked her about D, her first instinct was aspirational: "I want to be recognised as a thought leader in my field."

"That's a beautiful vision," I said. "But that's not D. What's your D'?"

"I defer credit and visibility opportunities to others."

"So D is?"

She hesitated. "NOT defer credit and visibility opportunities to others?"

"Exactly."

"But that doesn't tell me what to do instead."

"That's the point. We don't know yet. Maybe you'll claim credit loudly. Maybe you'll claim it quietly. Maybe you'll find a third way we haven't imagined. The NOT creates space for discovery."

Rachel's D: NOT defer credit and visibility opportunities to others.

No mention of "thought leadership." No grand vision of recognition. No assumptions about what claiming credit looks like. Just NOT what she currently does.

"But what if this leads to being a thought leader?" she asked.

"Maybe it will. But we don't know that yet. And if we assume it will, we'll miss the real exploration. Let the cloud show us what's possible—don't decide in advance."

The Trap of Overcorrection

A subtle trap awaits when defining D: the temptation to overcorrect.

If D' is "I work until midnight every night," the overcorrection is "I leave work at 5 PM no matter what." If D' is "I stay silent in meetings," the overcorrection is "I dominate every discussion."

These aren't NOT statements—they're extreme alternatives. And extreme alternatives carry their own problems.

The test: Is your D simply NOT D', or have you jumped to an extreme alternative?

• D': "I work until midnight" → D: "NOT work until midnight" ✓
• D': "I work until midnight" → D: "Leave precisely at 5 PM" ✗ (overcorrection)
• D': "I stay silent in meetings" → D: "NOT stay silent in meetings" ✓
• D': "I stay silent in meetings" → D: "Speak up constantly" ✗ (overcorrection)

NOT D' is simple negation. Overcorrection is a new behaviour that swings to the opposite extreme. Stay with NOT.

Why This Feels Uncomfortable

If you're feeling frustrated that you can't define your grand vision as D, good. That frustration is data.

It means you've been carrying an image of your transformed self—a picture of who you want to become. That picture isn't wrong. It's valuable. But it doesn't belong in D.

Here's where it will reappear: in A, the unified outcome we'll discover in Chapter 7. That's where your deepest aspirations live. That's where the purpose behind both D and D' reveals itself.

But we have to earn our way there. First, we need to understand what D gives you—that's B, the benefit of NOT doing your current behaviour. Then what D' gives you—that's C, the benefit of your current behaviour. Only then can we discover what both are really trying to achieve.

The Perry Approach is a journey, not a leap. Trust the process.

Your D Discovery Process

Let's work through finding your D. Return to the D' you identified in Chapter 4.

Step 1: Write Your D' Again

State your current behaviour clearly. This is your starting point.

Example: "I accept meeting invitations automatically without assessing their value against my priorities."

Step 2: Add NOT

Simply put NOT in front of your D'. That's it. That's your D.

Example: "NOT accept meeting invitations automatically without assessing their value against my priorities."

Step 3: Resist the Temptation to "Improve" It

You'll want to convert this to something that sounds more actionable—like "I evaluate meeting invitations against my priorities before responding."

Don't.

That positive alternative assumes you know the solution. The NOT keeps the door open for discovery.

Step 4: Check for Overcorrection

Make sure you haven't jumped to an extreme alternative.

• "NOT accept meeting invitations automatically" ✓ (simple negation)
• "Decline all meetings" ✗ (overcorrection)

Step 5: Test for Aspiration

If your D sounds like a grand vision of transformation, you've slipped into aspiration. Return to NOT D'.

• "NOT accept automatically" ✓ (negation)
• "Be disciplined about my time" ✗ (aspiration)

Final D: "NOT accept meeting invitations automatically without assessing their value against my priorities."

Common D Formulations

Here are well-formed D statements for the common patterns from Chapter 4:

The Over-Deliverer

• D': I take on more work than I can sustain, delivering at high quality regardless of personal cost
• D: NOT take on more work than I can sustain

The Silent Expert

• D': I keep my expertise and opinions to myself unless explicitly asked
• D: NOT keep my expertise and opinions to myself unless explicitly asked

The Rescuer

• D': I step in to solve problems before others have a chance to struggle
• D: NOT step in to solve problems before others have a chance to struggle

The Perfectionist

• D': I revise and refine work repeatedly, delaying completion until it meets an internal standard
• D: NOT revise and refine work repeatedly, delaying completion

The Pleaser

• D': I agree to requests and adjust my position to maintain harmony
• D: NOT agree to requests and adjust my position to maintain harmony

The Controller

• D': I maintain oversight of details and decisions, even when others are capable
• D: NOT maintain oversight of details and decisions when others are capable

The Avoider

• D': I delay addressing difficult issues until they become unavoidable
• D: NOT delay addressing difficult issues until they become unavoidable

Notice how each D is simply NOT D'—no grand visions, no transformed identities, no assumptions about what you'll do instead. Just NOT what you're currently doing.

What Marcus Realised

By the end of our session, Marcus had something far more valuable than his vision of "commanding presence."

He had openness.

"I've been chasing this image of the leaders I admire," he said. "But I never stopped to ask what I'm actually doing that's different from them. I just assumed I needed to become a different person."

"And now?"

"Now I see it's about NOT doing what I'm currently doing. NOT over-preparing. NOT speaking rapidly. NOT avoiding eye contact. What I actually do instead—that's what we'll discover."

"Exactly. And here's what we don't know yet," I said. "We don't know why you over-prepare and speak rapidly. We don't know what those behaviours give you. And we don't know what NOT doing them might cost you."

His eyes widened slightly. "Cost me?"

"Every behaviour has benefits. Even the ones that exhaust us. That's what we explore next—in Chapter 6."

Marcus's cloud was beginning to take shape. He had his D' (where he was) and his D (NOT D'). But the real work—understanding why he was stuck between them—was just beginning.

Chapter Reflection

Before moving to Chapter 6, complete your D:

1. Return to your D' from Chapter 4. Write it clearly at the top of a fresh page.
2. Add NOT. Put NOT in front of your D'. That's your D.
3. Resist the temptation to "improve" it. If you find yourself wanting to convert NOT D' into something more actionable or positive, stop. That's the aspiration trap.
4. Check for overcorrection. Make sure you haven't jumped to an extreme alternative.
5. Check for aspiration. If your D sounds like a grand vision of transformation, you've gone too far. Return to NOT D'.
6. Write your D statement:

"D': [current behaviour]. D: NOT [current behaviour]."

Looking Ahead

You now have two pieces of your cloud:

• D': Your current behaviour—specific, observable, positively phrased
• D: NOT D'—the simple negation of your current behaviour

But clouds don't resolve just by naming endpoints. The real insight comes from understanding what each position gives you.

In Chapter 6, we'll explore the hidden benefits—first B, the benefit of D (what NOT doing your current behaviour gives you), then C, the benefit of D' (what your current behaviour gives you). This is where transformation becomes possible.

Because here's the truth the Perry Approach reveals: You're not stuck because you're weak or broken. You're stuck because both D' and D are serving you—and you haven't yet found a way to honour both.

That discovery changes everything.

Practise This With Others — The Conflict Club

The Conflict Club is Level 1 of YourThinkingCoach pathway — weekly live sessions where you work a real conflict with fellow practitioners. The book gives you the method. The Club is where you learn to use it.

The Conflict Club is Level 1 of YourThinkingCoach pathway — the entry point for anyone who wants to make this methodology part of how they think, lead, and work with conflict.

Join the Conflict Club →

← Previous: Chapter 4: Identifying What's Really Happening (D')

→ Next: Chapter 6: The Hidden Benefits Analysis (B & C)

This is a living book, freely readable online. We welcome:

• Readers and practitioners quoting passages with attribution and a link back to this page
• AI assistants and search engines summarising, citing, and linking to this work to help readers find it
• Educators, facilitators, and consultants referencing the ideas in their own teaching, with attribution

We do not permit reproduction of the book in whole or in substantial part, commercial republication, or use of the methodology names and frameworks above to brand competing offerings without prior written permission.

If you would like to use this material in a way these terms don't clearly cover, please get in touch — we generally say yes.

Published by Employment Relations Centre Limited