In today’s turbulent business climate, traditional five-year strategic plans are rapidly losing relevance. The modern environment is often described as VUCA – Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous – meaning that conditions change faster than ever and in unexpected ways. South African business leaders know this reality well: economic fluctuations, an unstable power supply, rapid digital disruption, and global shocks have created a “perfect storm of uncertainty” as we enter the mid-2020s. In such a climate, rigid long-term plans can quickly become obsolete. Instead, organisations must pivot to more agile and adaptive approaches to strategy. This paper argues that the era of the static five-year plan is over, exploring why these plans fail in a VUCA world and how leading companies – guided by insights from McKinsey, BCG, Bain, and Deloitte – are embracing new strategic frameworks. A South African case study will illustrate the shift from inflexible planning to agile strategy in action, and we will examine practical alternatives (like rolling forecasts, scenario planning, and real-time decision-making) that executives and boards can adopt. The goal is to provide South African business leaders with a clear roadmap for rethinking strategic planning in a way that ensures resilience, relevance, and competitive advantage in an unpredictable future.

The Demise of the Five-Year Plan in a VUCA World

Traditional five-year strategic plans assume a relatively stable future – an assumption that no longer holds. In an age of pandemics, geopolitical conflicts, technological disruption, and climate-related events, volatility is the “new normal.” McKinsey observes that a succession of shocks (from the COVID-19 pandemic to war and inflation) has created perhaps “the most challenging environment management teams have ever faced”. Executives who once confidently charted five-year trajectories now admit that their “crystal ball” has cracked, as unforeseen events upend even the best-laid plans.

The fundamental problem is that long-term forecasts in a VUCA environment are inherently unreliable. A strategy set in stone for half a decade can’t account for rapid shifts in market conditions, customer behaviour, or competitive landscape. As Bain & Company experts note, history shows that roughly two-thirds of successful new businesses ended up ditching their original strategic plans to cope with unexpected market changes. In other words, sticking dogmatically to a five-year roadmap in a world of “black swan” events can be downright dangerous. When the external context turns out radically different than assumed, a fixed plan becomes a liability rather than a guide.

Even if a five-year plan captures today’s realities, it “grows stale quick” if the world is moving faster. A plan that looked ambitious in year one might be outdated by year two – or sooner. The global consulting firms have been vocal about this issue. For instance, McKinsey & Company highlights that many companies’ so-called strategic plans are really just budgets with a multi-year view, lacking true strategic insight. More provocatively, McKinsey cites management scholar Henry Mintzberg’s view of “strategic planning” as an oxymoron, because real strategy often isn’t conceived in boardroom planning exercises at all. He argues – and McKinsey’s research concurs – that the formal annual planning ritual tends to yield little value: it produces “warmed-over updates of last year’s presentations” and encourages playing it safe rather than fostering bold new ideas. In a high-risk, high-uncertainty environment, this failure to generate fresh strategic thinking is a severe drawback.

Moreover, rigid plans can create a false sense of security and control. Leaders might be tempted to “stick to the plan” even when signals show the landscape is shifting. This confirmation bias and commitment to a set course can blind organisations to emerging threats or opportunities. Deloitte’s strategists bluntly describe the traditional approach: a detailed plan is drawn up with milestones and forecasts for years ahead, and managers then “work as hard as possible to stick to their forecasts, even if those forecasts turn out to be wrong.” Risk management in such cases often devolves into a tick-box exercise, until unaddressed risks turn into very real issues. The result? Plans not only fail to foresee the future – they can actively hinder necessary course correction. It is no surprise that Deloitte concludes this outdated approach leads to programmes and strategies that “don’t go wrong, they start wrong”.

In summary, the five-year plan has died because the premise on which it was built – a predictable world – no longer exists. Business operates in a realm where unexpected shocks are inevitable and continuous change is constant. As one Forbes columnist put it humorously: “Rigid five-year plans are so last decade.” The new imperative is adaptability. In the next sections, we will see how leading consulting firms and forward-thinking companies are responding to this imperative by reinventing the strategic planning process itself.

From Rigidity to Agility: Insights from Top Consulting Firms

Global consulting firms have been among the most influential voices urging companies to rethink their planning practices. McKinsey, BCG, Bain, and Deloitte each offer frameworks and insights that converge on a common theme: agility and adaptability must replace rigidity and predict-and-control management. Below we synthesise some of their key points:

• McKinsey & Company – Prepared Minds, Not Fixed Plans: McKinsey advises that the primary goal of any strategy process today should be to “build prepared minds” in the organisation rather than to produce a static document. This means ensuring leadership deeply understands the business and its environment so they can respond swiftly as events unfold. Strategy, in McKinsey’s view, is no longer a once-a-year exercise but a continuous dialogue. They recommend redesigning the planning process to “support real-time strategy making”. In practice, companies that follow McKinsey’s advice often implement ongoing strategy reviews, scenario planning exercises, and encourage what the firm calls “strategic ambidexterity.” Strategic ambidexterity is the ability to play both offense and defense – prudently managing risks while boldly pursuing new opportunities despite the volatility. The best leaders, McKinsey finds, are ambidextrous: they are “prudent about managing the downside while aggressively pursuing the upside,” thinking about the next decade rather than just the next quarter. This mindset acknowledges uncertainty but doesn’t become paralyzed by it – instead, it uses uncertainty as a catalyst for creative, long-term moves (e.g. reimagining business models or making acquisitions when rivals are fearful). In short, McKinsey pushes companies to abandon the illusion of certainty and to embrace agility, continuous learning, and resilience as core strategic principles.
• Boston Consulting Group (BCG) – Rip Up the Old Planning Process: BCG has been blunt about the need to overhaul how planning is done. In a notable piece titled “Bold Plans Do Not Come from Old Planning Processes,” BCG argues that simply dusting off last year’s plan and extending forecasts is a recipe for mediocrity. Incrementalism in a high-change era can cause companies to “cede potentially transformative moves to nimbler rivals.” Instead, BCG urges leaders to “rip up the conventional planning process and begin anew”. What does a new process look like? BCG recommends replacing single-point forecasts with multiple scenarios and strategic options. Rather than betting on one future, companies should ask “What worlds might we be operating in three to five years from now?” and develop a range of plausible scenarios – including even unlikely but possible outcomes. For each scenario, management can then brainstorm what a winning strategy would look like in that world. This pushes teams to consider bold moves and “think in leaps, not increments,” as BCG puts it. One outcome of this approach is identifying “no-regret moves” – investments or strategic actions that make sense across multiple scenarios – and pursuing those decisively. Another outcome is setting trigger points for more speculative moves: BCG advises creating indicator dashboards linked to each scenario, so that if certain signals or metrics (e.g. a surge in a new technology, a regulatory change) begin to materialise, the company can quickly pivot to the appropriate prepared strategy. In essence, BCG’s framework injects agility by planning for uncertainty itself. It acknowledges “no one has a crystal ball”, but by leveraging imagination and rigorous scenario analysis, leaders can steer their organisations through foggy conditions with flexibility and foresight.
• Bain & Company – Adaptive Planning and Rolling Resource Allocation: Bain’s consultants likewise argue that the era of “predict, command, and control” management is over. In agile organisations, the purpose of planning is not to produce perfect predictions – it is to facilitate rapid learning and adaptation. Bain highlights that long-term EPS (earnings) predictability has almost no correlation with creating shareholder value, whereas the ability to drive growth and return on capital (through adaptive moves) has far more impact. They point out the flaw in fixating on precise budgets and targets: precision is not the same as accuracy. A plan can hit its narrow targets and yet completely miss the bigger picture of delivering real strategic success. To illustrate the futility of long-horizon precision, Bain offers a vivid analogy: “Like five-day hurricane paths, five-year business strategies are hard to predict.” Just as meteorologists issue a wide cone of possible hurricane tracks and constantly update it, companies should describe an expected strategic path but also estimate the uncertainty, define a range of outcomes, and be ready to adjust as new data emerges. This means shifting to rolling forecasts and frequent plan reviews. Bain suggests that instead of a once-a-year exercise, companies should update their strategic and financial outlooks quarterly, monthly, or even weekly if needed. The ability to “plan faster and more frequently” makes the whole process less onerous and more accurate over time. Crucially, Bain also advocates separating the truly strategic discussions from the budgeting process. Strategy should drive budgets, not the other way around. In practice, this might mean leadership teams set broad strategic themes and outcome targets first (e.g. customer experience improvements, innovation breakthroughs), and then resources are allocated in a flexible way to initiatives that advance those goals. As conditions change, resources can be reallocated dynamically – a stark contrast to the typical five-year capital expenditure plan that is locked in upfront. Finally, Bain emphasises cultural agility: leaders must encourage transparency about uncertainties (it should be “commendable to expose honest uncertainties” rather than pretending the future is known) and empower teams to pivot without fear if assumptions prove wrong. The reward system and mindset need to shift from meeting fixed targets to improving outcomes and learning quickly.
• Deloitte – Continuous Strategy and Scenario Thinking: Deloitte’s approach, often termed “agility and resilience”, aligns with the above but adds an emphasis on continuous strategic monitoring. Deloitte argues that long-term plans should be replaced by a “Continuous Strategy” model – essentially, treating strategy development as an always-on activity rather than a periodic task. In Deloitte’s framework, organisations establish a strategic hub that “proactively scans the horizon, develops choices, assesses options, and evaluates outcomes throughout” the year. Two tools are central to this: Horizon Scanning and Scenario Planning. Horizon scanning means constantly monitoring emerging trends, technologies, and regulatory signals to foresee possible shifts early. Scenario planning then uses that intelligence to imagine different future states, enabling leaders to anticipate what might happen and how to respond. A powerful example Deloitte gives is from the world of Formula 1 racing: the McLaren team collects vast real-time data and simulates thousands of race scenarios, allowing them to pivot strategy mid-race by switching from an “obsolete plan” to an alternative that better fits unfolding conditions. In business terms, the lesson is that data-driven scenario analysis can confer the foresight to “predict, learn and adapt” strategy in-flight, rather than sticking to a pre-set course. Deloitte also underscores flexibility in execution. Being agile at the strategic level requires agility at the operational level – something the firm often refers to as “agile delivery”. For instance, in large projects or transformations, Deloitte advises breaking the effort into 90-day increments or sprints, with reassessment at each stage (an idea similar to BCG’s 90/180-day Agile Planning Cycle for transformations). By doing so, organisations can adjust their tactics and even strategic objectives as new information comes to light, rather than being stuck with a static Gantt chart from year one. The overall message from Deloitte is to embrace uncertainty rather than fight it: build a culture and system where strategy evolves continuously, informed by real-time insights and open-minded leadership. They reinforce that “long gone are the days of the 3- or 5-year plan” – success now belongs to those who can evolve strategy faster than the world changes.

In summary, the top consulting firms, despite varying terminology, all advocate for agility, frequent re-evaluation, scenario thinking, and a culture of adaptability. They provide a playbook for moving from the rigid five-year planning paradigm to a dynamic strategic management approach. Next, we turn to a practical example of these principles in action within a South African company.

Case Study: Shoprite’s Agile Strategy Pivot in South Africa

To ground these ideas, consider the case of Shoprite Holdings, one of Africa’s largest retail groups. Traditionally, a company like Shoprite would set multi-year expansion plans and operational targets, updated annually. However, the past few years have forced a dramatic shift in how Shoprite approaches strategy – moving from long-term planning to rapid, data-driven adaptation.

One catalyst was the sudden change in consumer behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic. In early 2020, strict lockdowns and health concerns drove a surge in demand for online grocery shopping and home delivery – a trend that was barely on the radar of many retailers’ previous five-year plans. Shoprite had to respond in real time. The company’s subsidiary Checkers quickly rolled out an on-demand grocery delivery service called Sixty60, promising delivery within 60 minutes. This initiative started as a pilot, but when it proved enormously popular, Shoprite pivoted fast to scale it up, effectively rewriting its strategic priorities on the fly. In a conventional world, expanding e-commerce from a pilot to a core business would have been a multi-year project plan; instead, Shoprite did it in a matter of months, reallocating budget and talent to meet the moment.

According to analyses of Shoprite’s digital transformation, the company embraced agile methods to drive this change. They formed cross-functional teams to enhance the Sixty60 mobile app, iterating its features every few weeks based on customer feedback and usage data. This continuous improvement ethos reflects the agile “sprint” framework more commonly seen in software startups than in traditional retailers. It paid off: by 2023, the Sixty60 service had expanded beyond the upscale Checkers brand into core Shoprite supermarkets across the country, tapping a much broader customer base. Shoprite’s agility not only satisfied a pandemic-driven need but also positioned the company as an e-commerce leader locally, ahead of competitors that were slower to adapt.

The strategic significance of this case is how Shoprite shifted away from a rigid long-term plan to an adaptive strategy mindset. Rather than sticking to a pre-set retail expansion plan (e.g. opening a certain number of new physical stores in five years), Shoprite’s leadership recognised a strategic inflection point and reallocated resources to a new growth avenue (digital commerce) in real time. This required quick decision-making at the top, a willingness to take calculated risks, and empowerment of teams to execute swiftly. It also required letting go of some old assumptions – for example, the idea that South African consumers wouldn’t rapidly adopt online grocery services was an assumption that perhaps underpinned earlier plans, but the reality changed and Shoprite adjusted accordingly.

Another South African example is Discovery Limited, the insurance and health finance company known for its Vitality wellness program. While Discovery has always been innovative, its recent moves underscore agile strategy. During the pandemic, Discovery leveraged its digital health platform to offer telemedicine and wellness tools, adjusting its services in response to clients’ changing needs almost quarter by quarter. The company’s strategic roadmap for health technology wasn’t confined to a five-year cycle; it evolved dynamically as new technologies (like AI-driven health recommendations) became viable. Discovery’s ability to rapidly integrate new features into its Vitality app – providing personalised health insights and incentives – illustrates how an adaptive approach can keep a business at the forefront of its industry. Rather than executing a fixed long-term IT plan, Discovery’s teams iterate continuously, guided by a clear vision but flexible on the tactics.

These case studies demonstrate a common pattern: South African companies that thrive are those that embed agility into their strategy execution. They still have long-term visions – Shoprite surely envisions being the No.1 food retailer, Discovery aims to be a leader in wellness-based insurance – but they no longer rely on static, detailed five-year plans to get there. Instead, they navigate via frequent course corrections, market sensing, and rapid implementation of new initiatives. The lesson for executives and boards is that agility is not just a buzzword; it’s a strategic capability that can determine whether a business survives disruptions or gets left behind.

Strategic Alternatives to the Five-Year Plan

If not five-year plans, then what? Agile strategy is not about forsaking planning altogether – it’s about planning differently. Several strategic approaches and frameworks have emerged as smarter alternatives to the traditional long-range plan. Business leaders should consider incorporating the following practices into their strategic management process:

1. Rolling Forecasts and Plans: Instead of creating a plan that you revisit in five years, adopt a rolling planning horizon. For example, many organisations now plan 12–18 months ahead in detail, but update that plan every quarter (or more frequently) as new information arises. This rolling forecast approach means you always have a forward-looking strategic view, but it’s continually refreshed. It forces managers to regularly question assumptions and incorporate the latest data. Rolling forecasts are widely used in financial planning (rolling budgets), and the same concept can be applied to strategy. A rolling strategic plan might involve quarterly strategic reviews where executives adjust priorities, add new initiatives, or drop projects that no longer make sense. The benefit is flexibility: course corrections happen in “real time” rather than at the end of a five-year cycle, so the company can respond faster than competitors to opportunities or threats. As one HR leadership guide succinctly put it, “The days of rigid, long-term strategic planning? Over. [We need] real-time scenario planning that adapts as fast as the market shifts.” Rolling planning delivers that adaptability.

2. Scenario Planning and Contingency Strategies: Scenario planning is a tool dating back to Cold War military strategy and famously adopted by Royal Dutch Shell in the 1970s, but it is arguably indispensable in today’s uncertainty. Rather than betting on one future, executives develop 2-4 divergent scenario narratives about how the external environment might evolve (for instance: an economic boom vs. a recession, or high regulatory intervention vs. free-market dynamics, etc.). For each scenario, the leadership team identifies what the organisation’s best response or strategy would be. This process yields a set of contingency plans and strategic options. The value of scenario planning is twofold: (a) it stretches thinking and uncovers strategic moves that a one-track plan might miss, and (b) it prepares the organisation for quick action if a particular scenario starts to unfold. As BCG notes, a single forecast “won’t work” in a fluid future – you need a “diverse set of options” so you can capture growth no matter which way the wind blows. Key to making scenario planning effective is linking it to decision triggers. For example, a company might have a scenario that assumes a new technology becomes dominant; the team would then define what signs (metrics, market developments) would indicate that this scenario is coming true, and pre-agree on the strategic moves to execute when those signs appear. In practice, scenario planning might lead to investing in real options – small investments that can be scaled if certain futures materialise. It also encourages resilience: by envisioning even unpleasant scenarios (e.g. loss of a key market), companies can devise contingency measures in advance, which is far superior to reactive crisis management.

3. Agile Strategy Sprints and Reviews: Borrowing from the Agile software development movement, many companies are now running their strategy setting in short cycles or “sprints.” This doesn’t mean the overall strategy changes every sprint, but the components of strategy (key initiatives, experiments, resource allocations) are reviewed and adjusted frequently. For instance, BCG’s Agile Planning Cycle recommends 90-day strategic sprints that plan for the next 180 days, continuously rolling forward. In each cycle, management evaluates progress on strategic initiatives, learns from any experiments or market feedback, and decides on adjustments for the next cycle. An agile strategy sprint might involve a series of rapid experiments in a new market segment during one quarter, followed by a strategy review to decide whether to scale up, pivot, or stop that effort in the next quarter. Another hallmark of agile strategy is empowering cross-functional teams to drive strategic priorities without waiting for annual approvals. These teams operate with a clear mandate tied to strategic objectives (for example, “improve customer retention” or “develop Asia market entry plan”) and work in an iterative manner, reporting back in frequent intervals. The advantage of agile sprints is that strategy execution becomes more iterative and responsive. It also keeps the organisation in a proactive stance. One can think of it this way: instead of one big bet on a five-year outcome, you place a series of smaller bets, continuously doubling down on what works and refocusing or discarding what doesn’t. This reduces risk and increases strategic agility. Notably, agile strategy requires a cultural shift at the leadership level – leaders must be willing to revisit their decisions often and admit when course corrections are needed (fostering a fail-fast, learn-fast mentality).

4. Real-Time Data-Driven Decision Making: A critical enabler of all the above methods is the use of real-time data and analytics to inform strategy. In the era of Big Data, IoT, and AI, companies have more information at their fingertips than ever before – about customer behaviour, operational performance, market trends, etc. Leading organisations build live dashboards and analytics models that track key strategic metrics continuously, allowing leadership to spot emerging issues or opportunities immediately. For example, a retailer might monitor daily online sales patterns and see a sudden spike in a certain product category – indicating a potential trend to invest in – or conversely, an unexpected drop that warrants quick investigation and action. Data-driven strategy also means using analytics to test strategic hypotheses. Techniques like A/B testing, pilot programs, and simulations (e.g. digital twins of the business) let a company gather evidence on what strategies might work before committing at scale. As Deloitte’s example of McLaren Racing showed, those who win are often those who “collect huge amounts of data” and run thousands of simulations to inform their next move. In a business context, that could mean simulating how a supply chain shock in China might affect your operations and preparing accordingly, or using predictive models to forecast customer churn under different scenarios and then acting preemptively. Real-time data also feeds into rolling forecasts (updating the numbers) and scenario triggers (setting off alarms when metrics breach thresholds). A data-driven approach ensures that strategy adjustments are based on evidence, not gut feel alone. It also shortens the feedback loop – executives can see the impact of a strategic action almost as it happens and adjust if necessary. However, to leverage this, companies must invest in the right technology (from business intelligence platforms to AI analytics) and talent (data analysts, data scientists) so that strategic data is accessible and trusted. When done well, real-time data turns strategy into a continuously guided process, much like a GPS navigation adjusting your route in response to traffic conditions, rather than a paper map you drew five years ago.

These alternatives are not mutually exclusive – in fact, they complement each other. An organisation might use rolling quarterly strategic reviews (alternative 1) that incorporate scenario-planning discussions (alternative 2), are executed via agile sprints (alternative 3), and are informed by the latest data dashboards (alternative 4). The overarching goal is to build a strategic management system that is iterative, flexible, and responsive. By doing so, a company can maintain a clear direction and purpose (a North Star vision) while continually recalibrating the path to get there as conditions change. This is the essence of agility in strategic planning.

Implications and Recommendations for South African Executives and Boards

For South African business leaders and board members, the shift away from five-year plans has profound implications. Embracing agile strategic planning will require changes in mindset, processes, and even corporate governance. Here are practical recommendations to navigate this transition:

• Cultivate an Agility Mindset at the Top: Change starts with leadership. Executives and board directors must champion flexibility over rigidity. This means being willing to revisit decisions, encouraging experimentation, and not penalising managers for changes in direction when justified by new information. Leaders should set the tone that adaptability is a strength, not a sign of indecision. In board meetings and strategy sessions, ask questions like: “What has changed since we last met? Do our assumptions still hold? Where might we need to pivot?” By normalising these discussions, the organisation will become more comfortable moving away from fixed plans. A recent INSEAD study described today’s CEO essentially as a “crisis leader” who needs to project stability while reacting fast and intelligently – in other words, being calmly agile. Boards should select and support CEOs who exemplify this balanced agility.
• Implement Continuous Strategic Monitoring: Establish a strategy monitoring dashboard and routine. For example, management can present a strategic KPI report to the board monthly or quarterly, highlighting any significant deviations in the market or business performance and proposing adjustments (rather than waiting for an annual review). Boards, in turn, should expect and encourage management to come with adaptive proposals. An implication here is that the board’s role may shift to be more actively involved in strategy oversight throughout the year, providing guidance in real-time. Companies should consider forming a strategy committee (analogous to an audit or risk committee) that meets more frequently to oversee strategic pivots between formal board meetings. The mantra to adopt is: strategy is never “set and forget” – it’s a live conversation.
• Align Incentives and Metrics with Agility: One reason five-year plans persisted is that executive incentives (e.g. five-year EPS growth targets) and budgeting processes reinforced them. To change behaviour, update the performance metrics and incentive schemes to value adaptability. For instance, include objectives related to successful innovation, speed of response to market changes, or customer satisfaction improvements – not just fixed financial targets. If a manager knows they won’t be punished for missing a static target due to taking a bold adaptive action that benefits the company long-term, they are more likely to act entrepreneurially. Also, consider using rolling targets or ranges for key metrics rather than point targets set years in advance. This creates breathing room to adjust. Some firms use Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) methodology, which is inherently more flexible and reviewed quarterly, to replace rigid annual goal-setting. Whatever the method, ensure that compensation and evaluation systems reward the outcomes (resilience, growth, innovation) rather than adherence to a plan.
• Strengthen Scenario and Risk Management Capabilities: South African companies should invest in building internal foresight capacity. This could mean training a strategy team in scenario planning techniques, or utilizing external experts to run scenario workshops. The board should regularly discuss major uncertainties on the horizon (economic, political, technological, etc.) and ask management “What if…?” questions. Incorporate scenario thinking into strategy offsites. Moreover, integrate your risk management with strategy – they should not be separate silos. A useful practice is to develop a “risk-adjusted strategy”: for each strategic initiative, identify what could derail it (risks) and have mitigation or contingency plans ready. Leading organisations in South Africa, particularly in banking and financial services, have become adept at scenario analysis (e.g. stress testing against macroeconomic scenarios). Others should follow suit, expanding this thinking to strategic decisions (for example, an investment in a new plant might be tested against scenarios of currency fluctuations or trade tariff changes). Given the volatility in South Africa’s socio-economic environment, this scenario discipline is invaluable. It can turn volatility into a competitive advantage by enabling quicker, premeditated responses while competitors are still reeling from surprise.
• Embed Agile Practices and Decision Structures: To truly operationalise agile strategy, executives might need to adjust organisational structures. This can include creating cross-functional agile teams for key strategic priorities, as we saw with the Shoprite and Discovery examples. These teams should have clear mandates, authority to make decisions within guardrails, and short feedback cycles with leadership. Another structural move is to shorten the budgeting cycle – some South African firms are moving to rolling budgets updated quarterly, which aligns the finance rhythm with strategic agility. Additionally, consider using stage-gate funding for projects: instead of funding a five-year project in full from the start, fund it in stages with checkpoints to continue or redirect investment. This mirrors venture capital approaches and fosters an agile allocation of capital. From a governance perspective, boards should be comfortable approving such flexible funding arrangements and not insist on upfront certainty for multi-year spend. It’s also wise to invest in technology for collaboration and transparency, such as project management tools that allow everyone to see progress and impediments in real time, thereby enabling faster adjustments.
• Develop a Learning-Oriented Culture: Finally, a successful adaptive strategy relies on a culture that is curious, learning-focused, and not afraid of change. South African executives should champion training and development that enhances agility – e.g. scenario planning exercises, innovation workshops, and leadership development that emphasises VUCA skills (resilience, creative problem-solving, emotional intelligence). Encourage management to treat every initiative as a learning opportunity: even if something fails, the question is “what did we learn and how can we use that?” This echoes the Silicon Valley ethos of failing fast and learning faster. In the South African context, it might involve breaking down hierarchical decision-making a bit, to allow ideas from lower levels to surface quickly (since frontline employees often spot changes in customer behaviour first). It also means maintaining morale and direction amidst change – leaders should communicate the vision and the rationale for changes very clearly, so that employees trust the process. As one HR expert noted, uncertainty can cause fear in teams, so leaders must “reframe uncertainty as opportunity” and keep everyone focused on growth, not just survival. Building that trust and transparency is key to making agility sustainable and not chaotic.

By following these recommendations, South African executives and boards can transform their strategic planning from a rigid calendar exercise into a living, breathing management practice. This will help organisations remain competitive and resilient, whether they face local challenges like regulatory shifts and load-shedding (power outages) or global shocks like supply chain disruptions. Agile strategic planning is not a fad – it is fast becoming the standard for effective leadership in the 21st century.

Conclusion

The five-year plan, long the staple of corporate strategy, is effectively dead – a casualty of a world that refuses to sit still. In its place, a new paradigm is emerging: one of continuous strategic adaptation. Business leaders in South Africa and beyond are learning that agility is the only durable advantage when volatility is constant. This does not mean abandoning vision or long-term thinking; rather, it means keeping strategy fluid in how you reach that vision. The insights from McKinsey, BCG, Bain, and Deloitte all reinforce a clear message: companies must become faster, more flexible, and more foresighted in how they plan and execute strategy. Those that have done so – embracing rolling plans, scenario foresight, agile sprints, and data-driven decisions – are not only surviving in a VUCA world, they are finding ways to turn turbulence into opportunity.

For South African executives, rethinking strategic planning is both a challenge and an opportunity to leapfrog legacy competitors. By adopting the practices outlined in this paper, leaders can ensure their organisations are not caught flat-footed by the next crisis or change, but are instead ready to respond, reinvent, and thrive. The demise of the five-year plan is not cause for lament; it is a chance to reinvent how we chart the course for success. In a world where “uncertainty isn’t just a challenge … it’s the defining context”, the ability to adapt may well define the next generation of business champions in South Africa. In sum, strategic planning is alive and well – but it must be dynamic. The businesses that grasp this will write their five-year stories not as fixed scripts, but as agile journeys of strategic evolution, always tuning into the winds of change and adjusting their sails accordingly.