Why Strategic Planning No Longer Works - and What to Do Instead

Strategic planning in many organizations has lost its relevance. While the process often consumes significant time and generates volumes of data, it rarely influences leadership decisions or shapes the organization’s actual strategy.

Why is this the case?

Primarily, the traditional model for strategy development is misaligned with how top leaders make decisions. In most large organizations, strategy development is a “batch” process: market and competitor data are analyzed, threats and opportunities are identified, and a multi-year plan is created.

This process usually unfolds annually according to a fixed planning calendar. Strategic decision-making, by contrast, is continuous. It is driven by immediate needs and rarely conforms to a preset schedule.

In short, strategic planning fails to make an impact when it does not influence decision-making and it cannot influence decisions if it remains a periodic, calendar-based exercise. To make strategy development meaningful, organizations must focus on continuously identifying and addressing the strategic issues that most affect their value.

Why Traditional Strategy Development Falls Short

The batch model of strategy development has two critical flaws:

1. Lack of Time for Complex Issues

Traditional planning processes often do not allow sufficient time for leadership to tackle the most critical issues - especially those that cut across business units, geographies, or entire business systems. These challenges typically require extended engagement, far beyond the three-or-four-month planning window. As a result, top leadership bypasses the strategic planning process altogether when making the most difficult decisions.

2. Poor Timing in a Dynamic Environment

Even when ample time is allotted, the timing of the planning process remains a barrier. Markets shift, competitors evolve, and unforeseen threats or opportunities arise - none of which align neatly with the annual planning cycle. When this happens, leaders cannot wait for the next planning session. They must act immediately to protect the organization’s performance.

A Better Approach: Continuous Strategy Development

Progressive organizations recognize the limitations of traditional planning and have adopted a different approach: a continuous model of strategy development and execution. In this model, both assessment and action are ongoing.

Strategy development revolves around a strategy agenda - a dynamic list of key issues and opportunities that leadership believes are essential to achieving superior performance. These issues may vary in scope but share one thing in common: a direct, measurable impact on the organization's value. Addressing them is central to the strategy process.

Once the agenda is defined, clear accountabilities and milestones are established. Each item is assigned to a specific leader who is responsible for ensuring timely, effective resolution. Unambiguous decision deadlines are set, creating urgency and driving high-quality decision-making.

Key Differences in the Continuous Strategy Model

1. Different Outputs: From Static Plans to Strategic Direction

Traditional strategic planning aims to produce a detailed plan. Continuous strategy, however, is not about creating a rigid document; it’s about setting a direction and identifying the key levers of change needed to move in that direction. This shift enables leadership to focus on what matters most and make decisions in real time, informed by evolving circumstances.

In today’s rapidly changing world, the idea that strategy can be fully planned in advance and then executed is outdated. No leader can predict the future with certainty. Instead, strategy should serve as a compass, providing direction and prioritizing issues that shape long-term value.

2. Clearer Accountability

Ironically, despite their complexity, traditional strategy processes often lack real accountability. No one individual is clearly responsible for executing a multi-year strategic plan. Plans may outlast leadership tenures, and implementation usually spans across areas beyond any one leader’s control.

In contrast, continuous strategy emphasizes individual accountability. Every agenda item has a designated leader and a clear resolution timeline. If a strategic issue remains unresolved at year’s end, leadership can evaluate performance accordingly. This clarity often accelerates decision-making and propels value creation.

The Bottom Line

It’s no surprise that many leaders are skeptical of strategic planning. If the process doesn’t drive decision-making, what is its purpose? And if influencing leadership decisions isn't central to strategy, what is?

To be truly effective, strategy development must evolve. It must shift away from creating static, annual plans and instead become a dynamic process focused on continuously addressing the issues and opportunities with the greatest impact on long-term value - for both shareholders and stakeholders.