The End of Stable Assumptions: How Executives Should Set Strategy in 2026

1. From Strategic Planning to Strategic Flexibility 

Traditional strategy frameworks emerged in an era defined by relative stability and predictability. Industry boundaries were well-defined, competitors operated within comparable models, and macroeconomic cycles unfolded slowly enough to be interpreted and anticipated. Political risk was largely localized, allowing global expansion without constant recalibration, while technological change advanced incrementally, giving firms time to adapt. Within this context, strategic planning horizons of three to five years were not only feasible—they were prudent. Executives could rely on historical data to forecast trends, conduct scenario analyses with meaningful confidence, and allocate capital toward long-term initiatives with reasonable assurance that the underlying assumptions would hold. This strategic architecture thrived on continuity. But in today’s environment, where assumptions expire faster than plans can be executed, such models risk becoming liabilities rather than assets.

Traditional strategy frameworks were built for environments in which:

• Industry boundaries were relatively clear.
• Competitors were known and comparable.
• Macroeconomic cycles were slow enough to interpret.
• Political risk was regionally contained.
• Technological change was incremental rather than exponential.

In such conditions, planning horizons of three to five years made sense. Executives could analyze trends, stress-test scenarios, and allocate capital accordingly.

In the current business environment, the traditional approach to strategy creation often fails not because strategists miscalculate or the analytical tools fail, but because the assumptions it relies on shift so fast that traditional planning cycles can't follow them.

Consider the following changes of the last five years:

• Supply chains optimized for efficiency collapsed under geopolitical shocks.
• Breakdown of the seemingly unshakable world order of strategic alliances between the US, the EU, and NATO.
• Digital platforms turned from social platforms into regulatory liabilities.
• Entire labor strategies were rewritten in response to cultural shifts.
• AI systems leapt from experimental tools to core strategic assets within months.

The result is a growing gap between strategic intent and operational reality. Plans look coherent on paper, yet feel irrelevant by the time they reach execution.

Is it a temporary disruption, or is it the emergence of a new, permanent, unpredictable reality for strategists?

2. The Illusion of Forecasting in a Nonlinear World

Many organizations respond to instability by doubling down on forecasting—more data, more spreadsheets, more dashboards. When the environment becomes volatile, leaders instinctively reach for greater analytical precision, believing that better prediction will restore control. But in fast‑moving markets, the issue isn’t a lack of information; it’s the shrinking half‑life of assumptions. Forecasting becomes a form of false reassurance: it creates the illusion of control. However, what it actually does is divert attention away from adaptability, experimentation, and real‑time learning. The result is a strategy process that becomes less agile, slower, and more prone to making false predictions, while it needs to become lighter, faster, and more adaptable.

Forecasting assumes that:

• The future is an extension of the past.
• Causal relationships remain intact.
• Variance can be modeled within known bounds.

At the beginning of 2026, these assumptions increasingly fail.

Technological change is nonlinear. Political decisions are discontinuous. Social dynamics amplify through networks rather than institutions. Small triggers create outsized effects.

Even the most sophisticated models cannot reliably predict:

• Regulatory reversals driven by electoral swings
• Platform collapses triggered by reputational cascades
• Technological inflection points driven by open-source breakthroughs
• Cultural shifts that redefine legitimacy overnight

As analysts at McKinsey & Company and other leading firms have noted in recent years, the accuracy of long-range forecasts is declining even as analytical capacity increases. More insight does not necessarily produce more foresight.

The implication for executives is uncomfortable but unavoidable:

Strategy can no longer be only about prediction. It must be about positioning under permanent uncertainty.

3. Strategy as a Set of Assumptions—And Why That No Longer Works

At its core, every strategy rests on a handful of assumptions:

• About customers
• About competitors
• About costs and capital
• About regulation and geopolitics
• About technology adoption

Historically, these assumptions were implicit and rarely revisited. They functioned as stable anchors.

In 2026, assumptions are no longer anchors. They are moving parts. The danger is not that executives hold assumptions—but that they treat them as facts rather than hypotheses. When assumptions harden, organizations become brittle. They optimize for a world that no longer exists.

This explains why many well-run companies appear strategically confused:

• They execute flawlessly against outdated premises.
• They defend legacy advantages that have lost relevance.
• They respond tactically to shocks without revisiting core beliefs.

4. How Strategic Inertia Holds Companies Back

Companies rarely collapse in a single dramatic moment. More often, they drift—slowly, almost imperceptibly—because the strategies that once propelled them forward become the very constraints that hold them back. This is the essence of strategic inertia.

Strategic inertia happens when leaders may be skilled, experienced, and operationally strong, yet the organization still falters because it keeps doing what used to work, even after the world has shifted. The problem isn’t the talent of the managers; it’s the inability to let go of old assumptions, old processes, and old strategic commitments.

Strategic inertia shows up when:

• A company continues investing in a declining business model because it once made them successful.
• Leaders recognize change intellectually but cannot reallocate resources fast enough.
• Internal systems, incentives, and culture reward stability over adaptation.
• The organization is optimized for yesterday’s environment, not today’s.

In other words, competent managers can still preside over decline if the organization is locked into past logic. The failure comes from structural and cognitive rigidity, not from a lack of intelligence or effort. What has changed now is the environment: the world is no longer structured to forgive such inertia. The assumptions that once allowed organizations to rely on established playbooks are eroding at unprecedented speed.

5. The Collapse of Stable Assumptions

Executives today are not simply dealing with faster change; they are dealing with discontinuous change—shifts that break historical patterns rather than extend them.

Technology is no longer a trend—it’s a discontinuity.

Artificial intelligence, automation, and synthetic biology are not incremental innovations. They are general‑purpose technologies that reshape entire industries simultaneously. Their adoption curves are exponential, not linear. Forecasting their impact using historical analogies is futile.

Geopolitics has returned as a primary business variable.

Supply chains, once optimized for efficiency, now require resilience. Markets once assumed to be open are increasingly fragmented. Regulatory regimes shift with political cycles rather than economic logic. Executives can no longer assume that global integration will deepen; in many sectors, it is reversing.

Consumer behavior is structurally unpredictable.

The pandemic permanently altered expectations around convenience, digital access, trust, and value. Generational divides are widening. Cultural cycles are accelerating. Predictive models built on pre‑2020 data are increasingly unreliable.

Capital markets reward adaptability over scale.

Investors have become more skeptical of long‑term forecasts and more attentive to a company’s ability to pivot. Flexibility, not size, is becoming the dominant signal of resilience.

Talent markets are fluid and asymmetric.

Hybrid work, demographic shifts, and new expectations around autonomy have destabilized traditional workforce planning. Skills depreciate faster. Career paths are nonlinear. The assumption that talent can be “acquired as needed” is no longer viable.

The common thread:  

Executives can no longer rely on the past to predict the future. The strategic question is no longer “What will happen?” but “How do we win when we cannot know what will happen?”

6. The Shift from Strategy as Design to Strategy as Discipline

In stable environments, strategy functions much like a design exercise. Leaders can analyze industry structure, map competitive positions, choose a clear path, align the organization around it, and execute with confidence that the external conditions will remain relatively consistent. The logic is linear: diagnose the situation, craft a plan, deploy resources, and optimize for efficiency. This approach works when market dynamics evolve slowly, customer expectations shift predictably, and technological change unfolds in manageable increments. Under these conditions, the strategist’s primary task is to architect coherence—ensuring that choices about markets, capabilities, and investments reinforce one another over a multi‑year horizon.

In unstable environments, however, strategy becomes a discipline of continuous recalibration. The strategist’s role shifts from designing a fixed blueprint to orchestrating an adaptive system that can respond to rapid, nonlinear change. Instead of assuming that choices will hold, leaders must monitor weak signals, test hypotheses, and adjust direction as new information emerges. Execution becomes iterative rather than sequential, and alignment is maintained not through rigid plans but through shared principles and rapid communication loops. In this context, strategic advantage comes not from perfect foresight but from the organization’s ability to learn faster, pivot sooner, and reallocate resources with agility.

This requires executives to rethink what strategy actually is.

In 2026, strategy is less about choosing a single optimal path and more about:

• Maintaining strategic degrees of freedom
• Preserving optionality under uncertainty
• Building organizational learning speed
• Decoupling commitment from conviction

This does not mean abandoning direction or coherence.

This does not mean abandoning direction or coherence. It means redefining both by treating strategy as a living system rather than a fixed blueprint. In environments where assumptions shift quickly, strategy cannot survive as a rigid, one‑time architectural plan. Instead, it must function as a living system anchored by a clear sense of purpose and long‑term intent, yet flexible enough to evolve as new information emerges. Coherence comes not from locking the organization into a predetermined path, but from aligning teams around shared principles, strategic guardrails, and a common understanding of how decisions should be made when conditions change. Direction becomes a compass rather than a map: it orients the organization without pretending to predict every turn ahead.

Treating strategy as a living system requires leaders to balance stability with adaptability. The organization still needs a unifying narrative, a set of priorities, and a view of where it is trying to go. But those elements must be revisited regularly, informed by real‑time learning, and open to recalibration. This approach preserves strategic integrity while enabling responsiveness. It shifts the role of leadership from enforcing adherence to a plan toward cultivating the conditions in which the plan can evolve. In a world where assumptions expire faster than strategies can be executed, this is what coherence looks like.

7. The New Strategic Question: What Must Remain True?

Instead of asking, “What is our five-year plan?”, high-performing executives increasingly ask:

What assumptions must remain true for our strategy to succeed, and how will we know when they stop being valid?

This reframing has profound implications. It forces leadership teams to:

• Explicitly surface assumptions that were previously implicit.
• Monitor leading indicators rather than lagging outcomes.
• Create triggers for strategic review before crises emerge.
• Separate identity from strategy.

Organizations that fail to do this often mistake confidence for clarity. They appear decisive—until reality shifts. This reframing has profound implications. It forces leaders to interrogate the hidden premises that quietly shape their decisions—often without ever being spoken aloud. In practice, these assumptions span every dimension of the business:

• that customer demand will grow at historical rates;
• that supply chains will remain reliable and cost‑efficient;
• that regulatory environments will stay predictable;
• that talent will be available when needed; that competitors will behave rationally;
• that capital will remain cheap; that technology will evolve incrementally rather than disruptively.

Each of these beliefs may have been reasonable in the past, yet any one of them can become invalid overnight. By surfacing and stress‑testing these assumptions explicitly, executives shift from managing for continuity to preparing for discontinuity—building strategies that remain viable even when the underlying conditions change. 

8. Strategic Optionality as a Core Capability

One of the most underappreciated strategic capabilities in 2026 is optionality. Optionality is not indecision. It is the deliberate preservation of choices in environments where commitment is costly, and reversals are frequent. Leaders who outperform are not the ones who predict perfectly, but the ones who design systems that remain valuable across multiple possible futures. Optionality is the architecture of those systems.

Executives build optionality by:

• Avoiding irreversible capital commitments too early
• Designing modular business models
• Maintaining multiple supply and technology pathways
• Investing in platforms rather than point solutions
• Keeping balance sheets flexible

This mindset contrasts sharply with traditional strategy, which prizes focus, commitment, and scale. Yet in volatile environments, premature focus can be a liability or may even bring detriment. That is why the most resilient organizations are not those with the boldest strategies, but those with the widest range of options.

Why Optionality Matters Now

🌐 Acceleration and uncertainty  

Technological cycles compress faster than organizational cycles. AI, automation, and platform shifts create conditions where long-term commitments can become liabilities within months. Optionality protects against obsolescence.

💸 Asymmetric payoffs  

Optionality thrives in environments where the downside is capped, but the upside is unbounded. Small exploratory bets, diversified revenue streams, modular teams, and reversible decisions create exposure to positive surprises without catastrophic risk.

🔁 Reversibility as a competitive advantage  

Most organizations still operate with a “commit and defend” mindset. But in 2026, the ability to pivot without reputational or operational drag is a form of strategic agility. Optionality institutionalizes reversibility.

9. Why Speed of Learning Now Matters More Than Speed of Execution

Execution excellence has long been the gold standard of management. But in environments where assumptions shift rapidly, learning speed becomes more valuable than execution speed. However, it is worth remembering that executing the wrong strategy faster does not create an advantage.

High-performing organizations in 2026 share a different trait: They learn faster than their competitors.

They:

• Run small, reversible experiments.
• Treat strategy reviews as learning forums, not performance rituals.
• Reward early detection of invalid assumptions
• Elevate weak signals rather than dismiss them.

In many organizations, admitting that an assumption was wrong is still treated as failure. The instinct is to defend the original plan, protect the narrative, and preserve the illusion of certainty. But this reflex is a relic of a slower era when environments were stable enough that being “right at the start” mattered more than being adaptive over time.

In reality, late recognition is far more costly than early revision.

The longer a flawed assumption remains unchallenged, the more resources accumulate around it: budgets, teams, expectations, reputational stakes. By the time the truth becomes undeniable, the organization has built an entire scaffolding around a mistake. The cost isn’t just financial; it’s strategic drag, lost momentum, and lost opportunity.

10. The Leadership Challenge: Psychological, Not Analytical

Perhaps the hardest aspect of setting strategy in 2026 is not technical, but psychological. Executives are rewarded for confidence, clarity, and conviction. These traits have long been the currency of leadership: the ability to articulate a direction, defend it, and inspire others to follow. But the strategic landscape has changed. The qualities that once signalled strength now risk becoming liabilities when held too rigidly.

Modern strategy demands something different:

• Comfort with ambiguity — the ability to operate without full information and still move forward.
• Willingness to revise beliefs — not as a sign of weakness, but as evidence of active learning.
• Openness to disconfirming information — especially when it challenges the dominant narrative.
• Intellectual humility at the top — the recognition that no leader, no matter how experienced, can outguess a complex, fast‑moving environment.

These capabilities are not intuitive for most executives because they run counter to the incentives that shaped their careers.

The Tension at the Board Level

This creates tension, particularly at the board level, where stakeholders often demand certainty in environments that no longer offer it. Boards want forecasts, not probability distributions. They want commitments, not contingent plans. They want leaders who “know,” even when knowing is impossible.

The result is a structural mismatch:

• Boards expect predictability.
• Reality delivers volatility.
• Executives are caught in the middle.

Leaders who embrace ambiguity risk being perceived as indecisive. Leaders who project false certainty risk steering the organization into avoidable failure. The pressure to appear confident can override the need to remain adaptive.

11. How Effective Leaders Navigate the Certainty–Uncertainty Paradox

The most effective leaders manage this tension by being clear about direction but honest about uncertainty. They don’t confuse confidence with omniscience. Instead, they articulate a compelling strategic intent while openly acknowledging the variables that are still in motion. This balance is what builds trust in complex environments: people follow leaders who are transparent about what they know, what they don’t, and what they’re still learning.

High‑calibre leaders distinguish between three critical categories:

What the organization is committed to

These are the non‑negotiables — the long‑term principles, strategic anchors, and mission‑critical priorities that define identity and direction. Commitments provide stability. They tell people, “This is who we are, and this is where we’re going, regardless of how the environment shifts.”

Examples include:

• Core customer segments
• Foundational capabilities
• Ethical standards
• Multi‑year strategic bets with high conviction

Commitments are few, deliberate, and deeply aligned with the organization’s purpose.

What it is currently testing

This is the experimental portfolio which consists of initiatives designed to explore possibilities, validate assumptions, and surface new opportunities. Testing is not a sign of uncertainty. It signals that the organization is learning in real time rather than pretending to know in advance.

Tests might include:

• New product concepts
• Emerging markets
• Alternative business models
• Process innovations
• Early‑stage partnerships

The goal is to generate information quickly and cheaply, then scale only what proves valuable.

What remains deliberately undecided

This is the space leaders protect — the options they refuse to collapse prematurely. Deliberate non‑commitment is a strategic choice, not a leadership flaw. It preserves flexibility in areas where the cost of being wrong is high, and the environment is still unfolding.

Deliberate undecideds often involve:

• Timing of major investments
• Long‑term technology choices
• Structural reorganizations
• Market entries with high uncertainty

By naming what is undecided, leaders reduce anxiety and prevent teams from filling the vacuum with assumptions.

Why This Distinction Matters

When leaders make these categories explicit, they create organizational clarity without false certainty. People know where to align, where to explore, and where to stay open. It transforms ambiguity from a source of fear into a structured part of strategy.

• This is the operational expression of optionality:

Commit where it matters.

Experiment where it’s cheap.

Preserve choice where the future is still forming.

12. Strategy and Power in a Fragmented World

Another reality executives must confront is that strategy is increasingly shaped by non-market forces. Geopolitics, regulation, public sentiment, and platform governance now influence outcomes as much as competitive positioning.

Institutions such as the World Economic Forum have highlighted how business strategy and political risk are now inseparable. Companies are expected to navigate not only markets, but narratives, alliances, and legitimacy.

This means:

• Political neutrality is harder to sustain.
• Global strategies require local adaptation.
• Reputation has become a strategic asset and liability.
• Silence can be as consequential as action.

Executives must therefore integrate geopolitical and societal analysis into core strategy, rather than treating it as a peripheral risk function.

13. The End of the Annual Strategy Cycle

One of the clearest signals that assumptions are no longer stable is the breakdown of the annual strategy cycle. For decades, organizations treated strategy as a once‑a‑year ritual: a linear process culminating in a polished plan, neatly aligned with the budgeting calendar. But in an environment where market conditions shift monthly, technologies evolve weekly, and competitive moves unfold in real time, this cadence has become dangerously out of sync with reality. The world no longer respects the boundaries of a fiscal year, and strategies built on fixed annual assumptions age far faster than the cycle designed to review them.

However, in many organizations, strategy is still reviewed once a year and often tied to budgeting. When strategy is only revisited once a year, organizations lose the ability to detect early signals that their assumptions are drifting. Weak indicators of change go unnoticed. Emerging risks and opportunities remain unexamined. By the time the next annual review arrives, the gap between the plan and the environment has widened into a structural misalignment. Modern strategy requires a continuous sensing posture.  which is based on a shift from annual planning to ongoing strategic vigilance. Leaders who cling to the old cadence aren’t just slow; they’re strategically blind in a world that demands perpetual recalibration.

In 2026, leading organizations separate:

• Strategic direction (longer-term, identity-driven)
• Strategic assumptions (continuously monitored)
• Strategic commitments (reviewed dynamically)

Strategy becomes an ongoing conversation, not an annual event. Strategy stops being a once‑a‑year document and becomes a living dialogue inside the organization. Instead of treating strategy as something you “set and forget” during an annual planning cycle, leaders treat it as an ongoing process of interpreting what’s happening in the environment, testing assumptions, and adjusting understanding as new information emerges. The conversation never stops, but the strategy doesn’t swing wildly every week either.

Currently strategy is continuous sense-making, which means the organization is always scanning, learning, and interpreting signals, even when no immediate change is required. While you’re not constantly rewriting the strategy, you’re constantly refreshing your understanding of reality by being vigilant of any sign of the environment shifts, which you are able to notice early. When assumptions weaken, you detect it before they break. The strategy evolves through insight, not panic — guided by a steady rhythm of reflection rather than the artificial cadence of the annual planning calendar.

14. The Executive’s New Strategic Responsibility

The central question is no longer “Do we have the right strategy?”  

That question belongs to a world where environments were stable enough that a single, well‑designed plan could endure.

The real question is: Are we prepared to recognize when our strategy is wrong and act before it fails?

This reframing shifts strategy from a static artifact to a living system. It acknowledges that even the best strategy has a half‑life. Markets shift, technologies evolve, competitors adapt, and assumptions decay. The danger is not in choosing the wrong strategy at the start; it is in failing to detect when a once‑right strategy is drifting out of alignment with reality.

Conclusion:

The age of stable assumptions is over. But the age of strategy is not.

What is ending is the illusion that strategy can be finalized, frozen, and defended against change. What is emerging is a more demanding form of strategic leadership which accepts uncertainty as permanent and adaptability as decisive.

In 2026, the most successful executives will not be those with the boldest predictions, but those with the clearest thinking about what they do not know, and the strongest systems for learning before it is too late.

 

 

 

 

Back to top