How to Reimagine Strategy Planning to Embrace the Unpredictable
If the pandemic and the ensuing few years have taught us nothing else, it is the fact that we are in a world of terminal turmoil. Change comes fast and often. Black swans lurk around every corner. Yet many companies are still executing their strategic planning like it’s 1985. The new unpredictable normal calls for a different approach.
Historically, strategy creation was a long, linear process with a singular plan to win. This method worked well when product lifecycles were lengthy and technology-fueled disruptions were infrequent. The challenge with that now is that when conditions change—and they inevitably will—an organization wed to a singular plan is left paralyzed without an alternative. Or they overcompensate by trying many different things, reacting in the moment. On either extreme, a few things happen that rapidly derail growth and progress.
Some companies march toward their long-term plan ignoring signals that it’s time to shift—like lemmings off a cliff, they are unable to save themselves. Polaroid, Blockbuster, and Blackberry are unfortunate examples.
Then there are the companies that adopt a rapid reactive mode, trying to quickly pivot, without a future-focused view as their North Star. These organizations suffer from shiny ball syndrome, chasing something new with every market signal. They can’t gain any solid ground and they exhaust themselves in the process.
Walking the line requires “both/and” leadership: 3 ways to make it real
The middle and most optimal course is to hold on to the tension of creating energy and excitement in setting a compelling long-term vision while also working with all the teams to figure out how to realize that goal. The “how” is the hard task and will require leaders—and their teams—to do their best thinking and most challenging work.
Here is what to do differently to bring those two tensions together.
1. Deliberately broaden your approach and strategic aperture. When thinking through strategy, the best organizations look beyond the common or expected path, seeking not just to rely on a given Total Addressable Market or on packaged industry trends created by an in-house strategy team. To be sure, market size is important, but deliberately embracing strategy development in a different way can help teams break the common pattern of merely extrapolating current trends into the future. The best ideas and new perspectives truly come from everywhere, so engaging leaders (and the organization more broadly) to think bigger can help people break out of their current rivers of thinking, allowing them to view the business of today and the potential business of the future in fundamentally different ways.
2. Create discrete possibilities to focus thinking. With a wide runway for strategy creation, people (and leaders) can easily produce a list of strategic alternatives a mile long, to a point that they become quickly overwhelmed. This result is driven by the same logic that makes someone lose their way in the cereal aisle, paralyzed by having so many choices. After starting with a wide approach to explore strategic possibilities outside of a given industry or against known competitors, the best organizations then intentionally narrow the list to frame a few discrete and mutually exclusive options for the leadership team to consider. Evaluating a few potential options allows leaders to better access longer-term strategic thinking.
Take, for example, the experience of a fast-growing founder-led software company that had just gone public. Shortly after their IPO, the senior managers told Wall Street they would reach $1 billion in revenue in three years. Unfortunately, there was internal disagreement over which direction to take to achieve that target, creating unrest and confusion throughout the organization. We started by helping the senior managers gain clarity about which approaches to pursue and to define three mutually exclusive strategic plans. We then helped the executive team to better understand current state realities, to determine potential risks, and to solidify the ideal execution plan. We did that in part by leveraging the power of a quantitative model of their business to help them see the challenges and opportunities within each of the three strategic options.
1. Extend scenario planning beyond the C-suite. Stress-testing various scenarios and pre-planning responses is a well-honed tactic for traditional strategy development. Much of the power of scenario planning is that it creates space for debate and discussion, and for placing concerns on the table in a productive way. It also builds confidence and a sense of ownership in the planning group tied to the belief that their best thinking has been considered and applied. And it leads to more resilient and adaptive strategy execution. Rather than trying to cascade and communicate a linear plan throughout the company, the most adaptive organizations define the overall direction and use scenario planning to engage employees to work together on a solution. Here’s an example.
A company in a highly regulated industry was facing a slew of new carbon regulations being debated in the state legislature. Eager to prepare a response to whatever emerged from the legislature, the executive leadership team looked to their functional and business unit leaders for a deeper understanding of the technical and business implications of the full range of likely outcomes. We helped the functional leaders assess the potential regulatory paths, use scenario planning to explain the implications of each path for the company’s business, and scope out the likely responses of competitors to all of the possible changes. The cross-section of this data was then used to identify no-regret decisions that the company would make for each of the outcomes. The use of scenario planning allowed the functional leaders to suggest a menu of strategic options to the C-suite—and then provide the opportunity to continue down the various paths and “experience” the technical and business problems they would likely encounter. Overall, the approach exposed the functional leaders to the core strategic trade-offs of each decision and created a strong sense of ownership of the problem.
The fact is that while the world is no longer predictable, companies still approach developing their strategies as if markets are consistent and reliable. This is one of the 3 biggest reasons why companies fail to execute on great strategies (check out this white paper to find out more about the other two.) Actionable strategy is about engaging the organization in an integrated process of defining the future state, making that future believable and real to the touch, enabling people to change to make the organization ready for its changes, and creating the environment to assess and pivot along the way. Our work and research have shown that people can and will change—happily—and it’s our role as leaders to provide the conditions for their success. Start by embracing the unpredictable and make strategy development your organization’s super power. You’ll be well on your way to making your strategy actionable.
Related content
Related content
You can't predict the future. You can be disciplined about how you face it.
That's where Future Storming comes in. Future Storming is a process for looking at the trends and signals already visible in the market, understanding how those forces connect, and thinking more clearly about where they may lead.
Recently, we've been applying that lens to talent strategy, running Future Storming sessions with talent leaders across industries to understand which forces are already reshaping how organizations find, develop, and retain the people they need. When you look across those conversations, one thing is hard to miss: AI runs through almost all of the most significant trends, and not as a future scenario. It's already reworking the talent systems most organizations have leaned on for years, often quietly, and often faster than leadership teams have had time to respond.
From these sessions, five high-likelihood, high-impact shifts have emerged as the ones every talent leader needs to be watching right now. What follows is what each of them may mean for your organization.
1. The frameworks most organizations use to define great leadership were built for a different era
Skills and competency models describe work that no longer exists in many roles or that AI now performs alongside, or instead of, humans. The gap between what organizations say they're selecting and developing for, and what the work actually requires, is widening quietly.
This creates a real problem. Organizations that don't redefine what great looks like now will be developing the wrong people for the wrong future optimizing for capabilities that are becoming less predictive while under-investing in the ones that matter most.
- Rebuild leadership profiles from a future-back perspective, starting with where the business is heading, not where it has been.
- Focus on the distinctly human capabilities AI cannot replicate judgment in ambiguous conditions, relational intelligence, ethical reasoning, the ability to set direction when there is no precedent.
- Increase the use of behavioral observation in selection and development. It's the only methodology that shows how someone actually thinks and decides under real pressure.
The signal worth chasing isn't on a resume, it's in the room in how someone handles a real situation, under genuine pressure. It's the only place where someone can't prepare their way out of being themselves.
2. Human differentiators are the last mile AI cannot close
Judgment. Empathy. Creativity. The ability to navigate genuine ambiguity. These are increasingly what separates human contribution from AI output and they're precisely the things most talent systems have always found hardest to measure.
For a long time, organizations could afford to treat these as qualities that would emerge naturally with experience. That's no longer an option. The human differentiators are becoming the job. And most organizations still aren't measuring them well.
The methods exist behavioral assessment, simulation, structured observation. And AI is now making them accessible at scale in ways that simply weren't possible before. The question isn't whether to use them. It's how to deploy them thoughtfully, with the governance and transparency that -stakes talent decisions require.
- AI-powered behavioral observation that surfaces how people actually perform in the flow of work, (i.e. judgement, decision-making, adaptability) not self-report
- Assessment that evaluated how people work with AI, not just without it because that's increasingly what the role looks like
- Simulation-based approaches that reveal thinking in action - the kind of evidence no credential or output can provide
3. The talent pipeline is broken
AI is displacing the early-career work that has traditionally served as the on-ramp into organizational life. Those tasks once gave emerging employees something more valuable than work product. They gave them foundational experiences, relationships, and judgment. The kind of judgment that eventually grows into leadership.
The impact won't show up immediately. That's exactly what makes it worth paying attention to now. Within three to six years, benches will thin and succession pipelines will require far more intentional investment. Organizations will find themselves asking why their internal talent isn't developing the way it used to.
The organizations that get ahead of this have a real opportunity to build something more deliberate, more equitable, and better suited to the capabilities the future actually requires.
- Invest in real, simulation-based experiences, putting emerging leaders into the decisions and pressures that build genuine organizational judgment, not just task exposure.
- Redefine what early-career development is, building toward the capabilities the future requires, not the ones the old job description described.
- Build feedback into the flow of work. AI behavioral observation and practice AI role plays make continuous development possible at scale. The experience that used to happen informally has to be designed now.
4. People need to re-skill faster than any development model was built to support
People need to reskill faster than any development model was built to support. Most organizational development infrastructure was built around a longer, more stable arc of skill acquisition. AI is compressing that arc significantly.
The implication isn't just that training needs to be faster. It's that the whole architecture of how organizations identify, develop, and deploy talent needs to be built for continuous recalibration not periodic refresh.
- Prioritize adaptability and learning agility over static expertise. The ability to acquire new capabilities quickly matters more than the specific capabilities someone holds today.
- Treat reskilling as a continuous organizational process, not an episodic program.
5. AI is absorbing leadership work and culture is losing it's anchor
This is the shift that's easiest to underestimate, and hardest to recover from once it arrives.
Culture is what people see leaders do. The behaviors leaders model how they make decisions, how they show up in hard moments, what they choose to reward and what they let go are how organizational culture gets transmitted. It doesn't travel through stated values. It travels through visible human behavior.
AI is absorbing the work that used to make leaders visible as humans making choices. Performance reviews written by AI. Communications drafted by AI. Coaching conversations mediated by AI. When the distinctly human work disappears, so does the signal. People don't know what to watch anymore. And culture which depends on that watching starts to fray.
The organizations that navigate this well won't be the ones that use less AI, they'll be the ones most intentional about which leadership behaviors remain visibly human, and why.
The behaviors that held culture together need to be rebuilt around what humans uniquely contribute now and that starts with getting the success profile right. That's exactly what the Future Ready Profile is built for.
Strengthen empathy-centered leadership capabilities. The human dimensions of leadership matter more, not less, as AI takes on more of the technical work.
- Strengthen empathy-centered leadership capabilities. The human dimensions of leadership matter more, not less, as AI takes on more of the technical work.
- Reinforce organizational purpose and human-centered culture as anchors.
- Treat culture as something you design, not something you inherit.
What this means
The organizations that navigate this well won't be the ones that adopted AI fastest, they'll be the ones that invested just as deliberately in the human systems around it.
These five shifts aren't warnings. They're design problems, and design problems have answers. The talent systems that come out of this moment can be more intentional, more equitable, and more fit for purpose than anything we've built before.
At BTS, this is the work we're doing every day. If you'd like to think through what any of it means for your organization, we’d love to talk.
The thinking in this article was shapped by Future Storming sessions, including a SIOP 2026 workshop, and by ongoing conversations with talent leaders navigating these shifts in real time.
Hace unos meses terminé una sesión con un equipo de ejecutivos comerciales de una institución financiera mediana. Dos días intensos: cómo prospectar, cómo estructurar conversaciones centradas en el cliente, cómo crear valor en cada interacción. El grupo salió inspirado del taller.
Tres semanas después le pregunté a uno de los mejores participantes sobre cómo le había ido aplicando las nuevas herramientas. Me miró un segundo y me dijo, con total honestidad:
“La verdad... la semana siguiente fue igual que siempre, volví al viejo sistema”
El entrenamiento de capacidades es necesario. Pero sin una cultura comercial que lo sostenga, es un esfuerzo poco rentable para las empresas.
1. Las capacidades sin contexto no sobreviven al día a día
Un ejecutivo de ventas puede salir de un taller sabiendo exactamente qué preguntar, cómo estructurar una conversación de valor, cómo posicionarse como asesor estratégico en lugar de vendedor de productos. La semana siguiente, el peso de las métricas de corto plazo, la presión por resultados y las urgencias del día a día terminan arrastrándolos de vuelta a la rutina de siempre.
McKinsey (2024) encontró que más del 70% de las iniciativas de transformación comercial no logran sus objetivos — y la principal causa no es el diseño del programa, sino la falta de condiciones organizacionales para sostener los nuevos comportamientos.
El problema no es el taller. Es lo que existe o no existe en la realidad de la estructura comercial.
2. El cambio requiere alinear seis pilares
Lo que diferencia a las empresas que realmente transforman su modelo comercial de las que solo capacitan, está relacionado con seis pilares que operan simultáneamente.
1. Patrocinio de la alta dirección que empodera en lugar de solo exigir
2. Disciplina en gestión de cuentas/clientes estratégicos, con metodología y seguimiento
3. Conversaciones centradas en el cliente, no en el portafolio de productos
4. Cada interacción con relevancia estratégica, preparadapara crear valor medible
5. Nuevos comportamientos integrados al ritmo operativodiario y la cadencia del negocio
6. Líderes comerciales presentes que sostienen la cultura, no solo la expresan
Cuando falta uno, los demás no escalan y terminan provocando un círculo vicioso.
3. El liderazgo que sostiene vale más que el que exige
El patrocinio de la alta dirección y la presencia de los líderes comerciales sonlos pilares que más frecuentemente fallan. No porque los líderes no crean en el cambio, sino porque el día a día los jala de vuelta a revisar resultados, no a construir comportamientos.
Gartner (2024) señala que los equipos comerciales cuyos líderes hacen coaching activo y visible tienen hasta un 28% mayor probabilidad de adoptar nuevos comportamientos de manera sostenida.
El entrenamiento define el rumbo y entrega el mapa; el liderazgo es lo que realmente ayuda a navegar y sostener el cambio.
Conclusión
Si tu empresa está invirtiendo en transformar la forma en que sus equipos comerciales se relacionan con los clientes, la pregunta ya no es si el entrenamiento funciona. La verdadera pregunta es: ¿qué tan preparada está la organización para sostener el cambio?
Porque el talento existe. Las habilidades se desarrollan. Pero la cultura no se improvisa; se construye todos los días, con liderazgo, alineación y consistencia.
¿Cuál de estos seis pilares es hoy el más débil en tu organización?
É possível mudar a cultura de uma organização?
Hoje em dia, poucas organizações não estão envolvidas em um (ou vários) processos de transformação cultural. Novas formas de trabalhar em organizações mais horizontais e adaptativas, melhorias na cultura de segurança, orientação ao cliente, transformações nas áreas comerciais e excelência operacional, entre outros.
E é aqui que surge uma das grandes perguntas:
É possível mudar a cultura de uma organização? E, se sim, como fazer isso?
Para ajudar a responder a essas perguntas—frequentes entre nossos clientes e amplamente discutidas—gostaria de compartilhar o que aprendemos na BTS ao longo dos últimos 38 anos sobre o que funciona e o que não funciona (até agora, pois em transformação cultural estamos sempre aprendendo).
A boa notícia é que a resposta é sim.
A dificuldade está na segunda pergunta: como fazer isso?
Um projeto? Uma iniciativa?
Um ponto importante é que a transformação cultural não é um projeto com início e fim, mas sim um processo contínuo e em evolução. Isso muitas vezes gera tensão em organizações acostumadas a uma lógica de projetos.
O que é crítico e frequentemente ignorado?
Existem elementos que, quando considerados e aplicados corretamente, tornam a transformação muito mais eficaz. No entanto, muitas vezes são ignorados.
Esses elementos são:
- Envolver as pessoas. Quanto maior o envolvimento em todos os níveis, maior a probabilidade de implementação das mudanças.
- Tornar a mudança tangível e vivida no dia a dia, conectando teoria e prática. Transparência é fundamental.
- Toda mudança tem impactos positivos e negativos — ambos devem ser comunicados com clareza.
- Mudança cultural exige tempo e transformação de mindsets e estruturas organizacionais.
- A cultura deve estar conectada à estratégia.
Como estruturamos a transformação cultural?
Nosso modelo se baseia em quatro etapas: definir resultados, criar líderes de mudança, incorporar mudanças e sustentar novas formas de trabalho.
1. Definir resultados
O primeiro passo é estabelecer resultados claros e alinhamento executivo. É necessário conectar propósito, visão e objetivos organizacionais.
Ações:
- Coleta de dados (entrevistas, focus groups, visitas)
- Diagnósticos culturais
- Definição de expectativas (Leadership Profiles
2. Criar líderes de mudança
Todos os líderes devem atuar como agentes de mudança. É fundamental engajá-los emocional e racionalmente.
Ações:
- Programas de liderança
- Playbooks
- Feedback contínuo
3. Incorporar mudanças
É essencial transformar mentalidades e sistemas organizacionais.
Ações:
- Coaching
- Sprints culturais
- Cascata organizacional
- Avaliações comportamentais
4. Sustentar o novo modelo
Garantir continuidade através de redes, dados e suporte contínuo.
Ações:
- Integração com processos de talento
- Uso de IA no dia a dia
- Monitoramento da transformação
- Comunidades de prática
A importância de ser paciente e impaciente ao mesmo tempo
Transformações culturais são complexas e não têm fórmula única.
Ser estrategicamente paciente e taticamente ágil é essencial para ajustar e evoluir continuamente.
Esse equilíbrio permite transformar a jornada em algo positivo e sustentável.
Este é apenas um resumo.
Se quiser aprofundar com exemplos e práticas:
Baixe o PDF completo e acesse todo o conteúdo.