When perfect planning meets imperfect reality, adaptation wins every time.
In 2000, Blockbuster dominated the video rental industry with over 9,000 stores worldwide. Their leadership was confident in their strategic plan to continue expanding their physical footprint while gradually adding new services. That same year, Netflix offered to sell their three-year-old company to Blockbuster for $50 million—an offer that Blockbuster’s executives “laughed out of their office.”
After all, why should they take such a small startup seriously? At the time, only 2% of American households owned a DVD player, while VHS dominated the market. Blockbuster’s strategic plan made perfect sense based on current data—customers wanted instant gratification, and their store model provided exactly that.
But by September 23, 2010, Blockbuster filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection due to challenging losses, $900 million in debt, and strong competition from Netflix, Redbox, and video on-demand services. That same year, Netflix hit 20 million subscribers and started expanding overseas.
The problem wasn’t that Blockbuster lacked strategic planning capability—they had some of the smartest retail minds in the industry. The problem was that they confused having a detailed plan with being strategically prepared. They created what I call a strategy mirage—something that looks comprehensive and solid from a distance until the moment reality shifts.
This story repeats across industries with startling consistency. According to Harvard Business School Professor Robert Kaplan’s research, 90 percent of organizations fail to execute their strategies successfully. Numerous other studies from top consulting firms (including McKinsey, Bain, BCG) have shown approximately 70% of strategies fail due to poor execution.
When Plans Meet Reality: The iPhone That Apple Never Planned
Even Apple, the gold standard for revolutionary innovation, almost fell prey to its own strategic rigidity with what would become its most successful product. When Steve Jobs took the stage on January 9, 2007, he famously unveiled the iPhone as three devices in one: “a widescreen iPod with touch controls, a revolutionary mobile phone, and a breakthrough Internet communications device.” But this wasn’t Apple’s original vision at all. Their initial plan—codenamed Project Purple—was far more conservative: build a phone to protect the iPod’s market share by simply adding calling capabilities to their music device. Early iPhone prototypes from 2005 looked more like iPods with a phone function tacked on—exactly what their strategic planning suggested customers wanted.
But reality moved faster than their strategy. As development progressed, the team realized mobile internet usage was exploding, touch screen technology was advancing, and—most crucially—their own research revealed that consumers wanted a single device to replace multiple gadgets, not just an iPod that could make calls. Steve Jobs faced a choice that would have paralyzed most strategic committees: stick with the safer iPod-phone hybrid, or risk everything on a completely reimagined device that might cannibalize their own profitable iPod business.
Jobs made the call that shocked even Apple’s board: “We’re going to cannibalize ourselves. If we don’t, someone else will.” The iPhone launched not as an enhanced iPod, but as a revolutionary computing platform that happened to make calls.
The iPhone went on to generate over $1.5 trillion in revenue and fundamentally reshape multiple industries. But it only happened because Apple chose adaptation over attachment to their original strategy.
As I explore in my forthcoming book Change Mastery: How to Lead, Adapt and Thrive in a World of Uncertainty, the most dangerous strategic assumption is that the future will unfold according to our timeline rather than its own logic. Apple succeeded not because their original plan was perfect, but because they were willing to abandon it when circumstances demanded a bolder adaptation.
The Planning Paradox That Traps Most Organizations
Here’s the central paradox that destroys most strategic initiatives: the act of planning is invaluable, but the plan itself often becomes a liability. This isn’t a criticism of planning—it’s recognition of planning’s true purpose.
Dwight Eisenhower captured this ethos perfectly when he observed, “In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable.” The value lies not in the document but in the thinking process—understanding your market, clarifying priorities, identifying assumptions, and building organizational alignment around core objectives. As the old saying goes, failing to plan is planning to fail.
Yet I found that, while organizations invest heavily in creating detailed plans, they then feel compelled to follow them even when evidence suggests a different path. I’ve worked with advisory practices that stuck to predetermined growth strategies despite changing client preferences, and corporations that pursued acquisitions that made sense during planning but became questionable as market conditions evolved.
The problem intensifies when planning becomes a substitute for judgement and decision-making. Teams spend months analyzing every variable, seeking the perfect strategy that will eliminate uncertainty. But uncertainty can never be planned away—it can only be navigated through adaptive decision-making.
Why Strategies Crumble: The Four Fatal Assumptions
Through my work with organizations across industries, I’ve identified four assumptions that doom strategic plans before implementation begins:
The Linear Assumption Most strategic plans assume steady, predictable progress toward defined goals. Reality operates differently. Progress comes in spurts, setbacks, and unexpected breakthroughs. Markets shift suddenly. Regulations change overnight. Key people leave at inconvenient times.
Consider how many advisory practices planned steady growth through 2020, only to discover that market volatility and remote work capabilities became more important than any projected client acquisition timeline. The most resilient firms weren’t those with the most detailed plans—they were those that could rapidly shift resources and priorities when circumstances changed.
The Control Assumption Plans often assume more control over outcomes than organizations actually possess. You can control your effort, resource allocation, and team capabilities. You cannot control competitor actions, market timing, or external disruptions.
Blockbuster’s plan assumed they could control the pace of industry change by expanding their physical footprint, but between 1996 and 2010 Blockbuster was only profitable in two of those years. Netflix’s early success came from recognizing what they couldn’t control—technology adoption rates, content costs, competitive responses—and building flexibility around those uncertainties.
The Information Assumption Strategic planning typically assumes that more information leads to better decisions. Sometimes this is true. Most often, it’s not. Perfect information is rarely available when decisions matter most, and waiting for clarity can mean missing critical opportunities.
The best strategic thinkers make decisions with incomplete information, then adjust based on results. They treat strategy as a series of experiments rather than a blueprint to follow precisely.
The Consensus Assumption Many planning processes aim for comprehensive buy-in before moving forward. While alignment is valuable, excessive consensus-seeking can produce bland strategies that satisfy everyone but inspire no one. Worse, it can delay decision-making until opportunities pass. Margaret Thatcher, the late UK Prime Minister described consensus this way: “The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?'”
Building Adaptive Strategy: Beyond the Mirage
The most successful organizations I’ve studied approach strategy differently. They focus on building adaptive capacity rather than predictive accuracy. Here’s how:
Think in Scenarios, Not Forecasts Instead of predicting the future, develop multiple scenarios and prepare responses for each. Netflix didn’t just plan for one streaming timeline—they prepared for different adoption rates, various competitive responses, and multiple content licensing scenarios.
For advisory practices, this might mean preparing strategies for different market conditions, regulatory changes, or demographic shifts. For corporations, it could involve scenario planning around technological disruption, competitive dynamics, or economic cycles.
Build Options, Not Commitments The most powerful strategic moves create future options rather than locking in specific outcomes. Amazon exemplifies this—their investments in cloud infrastructure created options for their Amazon Web Services (AWS) business, their logistics network enabled marketplace growth, and their customer data platform supported advertising.
Emphasize Speed Over Perfection In uncertain environments, the ability to move quickly often matters more than moving perfectly. This doesn’t mean making reckless decisions—it means making thoughtful decisions with available information, then adjusting based on results.
Practical Applications for Leaders and Advisors
Whether you’re leading a global corporation or building an advisory practice, here are four principles for developing strategy that survives contact with reality:
1. Start with Principles, Not Predictions Establish principles that will guide decisions regardless of how circumstances evolve. Netflix’s principle of customer convenience guided their streaming pivot. Amazon’s customer obsession has directed countless strategic decisions across different business lines.
2. Plan in Phases, Not Years Break long-term strategy into shorter phases with clear decision points. This allows you to adjust course based on actual results rather than initial assumptions.
3. Institutionalize Strategic Learning Create formal processes for learning from strategic decisions. What assumptions proved correct? Which ones were wrong? What unexpected opportunities emerged?
4. Balance Planning with Opportunism Reserve resources and organizational capacity for unexpected opportunities. The best strategies combine deliberate planning with the flexibility to pursue emergent possibilities.
Moving Beyond the Strategy Mirage
The goal isn’t to abandon strategic planning—it’s to approach it differently. Treat strategy as a dynamic capability rather than a static document. Focus on building organizational agility rather than predictive accuracy.
The most successful leaders understand that strategy isn’t about having all the answers—it’s about building the capacity to find better answers as circumstances evolve. They plan enough to create direction and alignment, but not so much that they become committed to paths that may not make sense six months from now.
In our rapidly changing world, strategic advantage comes not from perfect plans, but from superior adaptation. The strategy mirage dissolves when we stop trying to predict the future perfectly and start building the capabilities to navigate whatever future actually emerges.
Remember: in strategy, as in life, the map is not the territory. The best strategic thinkers know when to follow the map and when to chart a new course entirely.
📥 Download The Uncertainty Advantage—a decision-making framework for leaders navigating change when traditional planning falls short.
When you are ready, direct message me and I can help you with
- Speaking Engagements & Workshops designed for your team and clients
- Tailored, high-impact Consulting and Coaching Services for your practice
Check out my podcast and other resources at www.samsivarajan.com
